| Revision as of 16:45, 17 April 2022 editSL93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors79,439 edits →We're below 60!← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:10, 17 April 2022 edit undoSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,761 edits →Draft ANI notice: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 363: | Line 363: | ||
| ::I also forgot to mention how he removed my comments regarding QPQs and hook wording (i.e. the greenhorn thing) from the Mann ministry nomination for being "offtopic"; it may be worth noting that removing comments bh others from DYK discussions is apparently a no-no even if you disagree with them. ] (] · ]) 22:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC) | ::I also forgot to mention how he removed my comments regarding QPQs and hook wording (i.e. the greenhorn thing) from the Mann ministry nomination for being "offtopic"; it may be worth noting that removing comments bh others from DYK discussions is apparently a no-no even if you disagree with them. ] (] · ]) 22:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC) | ||
| :@]: Well, since you're shooting for a topic ban, ] recommends ] rather than ]. But also, bearing in mind that I have little experience with ANI and have no desire to change that—I think this is well-written for what it attempts to do, but I also worry that ANI won't appreciate some of the messages here. Reading through the ANI advice, it suggests that the uninvolved participants don't like it when the plaintiff puts a spin on the diffs, or tries to prosecute a case. Neglecting that, this does lay out the relevant timeline well. ] (] • ]) (she/]) 02:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC) | :@]: Well, since you're shooting for a topic ban, ] recommends ] rather than ]. But also, bearing in mind that I have little experience with ANI and have no desire to change that—I think this is well-written for what it attempts to do, but I also worry that ANI won't appreciate some of the messages here. Reading through the ANI advice, it suggests that the uninvolved participants don't like it when the plaintiff puts a spin on the diffs, or tries to prosecute a case. Neglecting that, this does lay out the relevant timeline well. ] (] • ]) (she/]) 02:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC) | ||
| ::To clarify, {{u|Theleekycauldron}}, don't go by the ANI Advice page. WP:AN {{tq|is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators}}; WP:AN/I {{tq|is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems}}. Your problems with yon fella clearly falls into the latter (and yes, since you want as many non-DYK eyes on it as possible, that's where you find them, not the backwater of AN). I note that in any case he has forced your arm by filing there already. Any fans of ] should take a long cool drink and sit back and watch. HTH, ] 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Sourcing help == | == Sourcing help == | ||
Revision as of 19:10, 17 April 2022
SKIP TO THE BOTTOM
 | Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
|
DYK queue status
Earliest time for next DYK update: 12:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 05:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 12 hours Last updated: 5 hours ago( ) |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Moving the SOHA
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
I just archived the discussion on special occasion hooks. It seemed like the takeaway with the most chance of success would be moving the Special Occasion Holding Area to the top, instead of leaving it at the bottom where it's often ignored by prep set builders who usually take older hooks for a set. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said on the previous discussion, if anything helps the reviewers to spot a special occasion hook faster, let it be done. Moving SOHA to the top of the page is fundamentally a good idea. But, in my opinion, it is useful if, and only if we have all the special occasions hooks in the holding area. Otherwise, it doesn't take anything more than pressing that page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. Now, as it is being discuss, can someone help me figure out why do we have a SOHA on awaiting nominations page, when we are not allowed to nominate them in that section? Thanks for starting this discussion! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's probably a remnant from the time before the Approved hooks had their own page. CMD (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, but in any event I do not support moving anything until Shubinator is contacted and we make sure the move will not break DYKHousekeepingBot's creation of the Count of DYK Hooks table—I also do not support any move until the bot can be updated accordingly. Frankly, that table is far more valuable to DYK as a whole than the placement of the Special occasions section. CMD is correct about it being a remnant, and Maile that I was the one who did it (I'm pretty sure I also set up the Approved page): the stub of the Special occasions section was left on the main nominations page as a pointer to its new location when the Approved page was created to split those nominations off from the main page when it became overloaded and incapable of transcluding all the nominations. The reason you can't nominate the hooks in that section is the same as why you can't nominate ones for April Fools' Day on its page: these are ordinary nominations until they are reviewed and passed, and need to be reviewed without special priority or sequestration along with contemporaneous nominations. The idea of putting nominations in a special section at the bottom either privileges or disadvantages them, and is something I would absolutely oppose. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I wouldn't support nominating special occasion hooks in a separate area either—but I'm not sure why you don't want to move the the SOHA for only the approved hooks, as long as it doesn't break the bot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset I agree, and I don't suggest to add SO nomination there, but if it serves no purpose than just pointing to the new location, is it really needed there? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- What's the benefit of it being at the top rather than the bottom? It's always been at the bottom, so prep builders should know where it is, the times when I've built preps, I've always been able to find the SOHO fine. Don't see how it being at the top would mean people check it more than at the bottom- if prep builders are missing it, then it is their error. This just seems like a pointless discussion over nothing, in my opinion. Which seems to be the OP's forte on this talkpage at the moment- trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, "fixing" hooks by cutting content on them for no reason.... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fundamentally its a good idea, but in its current form, it looks to me more like a solution looking for a problem. At the end, its as simple as pressing the page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- i really just thought that if it were me, it's easier to remember all the hooks there if i have to pass by them and be reminded by them every time i build a prep set. it sometimes slips my mind otherwise, so i thought it might help. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just mentioning that I am not a experienced prep builder. If regular prep builders find it a useful suggestion, then let it be done. Thanks! - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- i really just thought that if it were me, it's easier to remember all the hooks there if i have to pass by them and be reminded by them every time i build a prep set. it sometimes slips my mind otherwise, so i thought it might help. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- The benefit is that prep builders, who should be starting at the top of the page and working down, will see those SO request first thing. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Vibes are happening on this page. Check the time stamp of my post below, with the same message. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Fundamentally its a good idea, but in its current form, it looks to me more like a solution looking for a problem. At the end, its as simple as pressing the page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- What's the benefit of it being at the top rather than the bottom? It's always been at the bottom, so prep builders should know where it is, the times when I've built preps, I've always been able to find the SOHO fine. Don't see how it being at the top would mean people check it more than at the bottom- if prep builders are missing it, then it is their error. This just seems like a pointless discussion over nothing, in my opinion. Which seems to be the OP's forte on this talkpage at the moment- trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, "fixing" hooks by cutting content on them for no reason.... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, DYKHousekeepingBot will break if this change is made today. If there's consensus for the change, no worries, we can coordinate to avoid disruptions. Best to also check with the other bot operators for bots touching the noms or approved pages: WugBot and MusikBot. Shubinator (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Advantage of moving the special hooks sub section to the top - it's a short list, and would make it less likely to accidentally overlook a SO request. The prep builder will know right away if they should include a SO in the set they're building. After a glance at that short SO list, the promoter can scroll through the oldest dates on the routine promotions. As is, maybe by the time they get enough hooks for a set, they didn't remember to also have a look at the SO hooks. We're human - we make mistakes. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure if this is resolved. EEng 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's not. I really wasn't expecting this to be as controversial as it is, but we need more input for a consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Support
- I would support moving SOHA to the top of the approved nominations page. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support moving it to the top. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support placing the special holding dates to the top of approved nominations, which seems logical to me. As for the Kavyansh.Singh question about SOHA notice also at the bottom of the nominations page: I think there was a reason for it, but it escapes my memory. BlueMoonset would likely have the answer to that, and might have been the editor who placed it there. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I support moving the SOHA to the top; there would appear to be benefits in doing so. Schwede66 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I support it. Personally, I start at the top and work my way down when I work on balancing prep sets. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
- To me it doesn't matter, either seems fine and the same. So happy to defer to what other people think is most helpful. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on this and don't mind either way. As long as its still accessible to put hooks in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Consider me neutral on this. No major issues with moving the special occasion holding area, if helps the prep builders. But in my opinion, both the ways appear more or less the same. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Close?
It's been seven days. Is there anything we need to do other than move the code to the top of the page? —valereee (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: If the closer finds that there's consensus to do this, then we have to talk to shubinator first—the DYKHousekeepingBot will break. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron, do you think we need a formal close? There's no formal opposition, just support/neutral. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't, but we're the proposers here so that's probably a decision for someone else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe Shubinator could do the honour of closing (and then tweak the bot). :-) Schwede66 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Shubinator: I think that's a fine idea, how about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is there anyone else who can tweak the bot? It looks like @Shubinator might be taking a break. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: the bot isn't open-source, so no, we'll have to wait. In the meantime, we should ping @Wugapodes and MusikAnimal to let them know this change is happening sometime soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- To be quite honest, I probably won't get this done until mid-December. This is a non-trivial change that I'd want to test out before letting it loose, and my schedule's filled with meatspace deadlines, grant review, and arb elections. I'll know more next week after I review the code and come up with a game plan. I'll keep you all posted. — Wug·a·po·des 20:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe after this is closed, it should be archived to a separate page for adopted, but unfulfilled, proposals? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd want to make sure it didn't get overlooked and forgotten. I'd rather just collapse it and pin it here as a reminder that there are still steps to be taken. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could I get a high-level overview of what exactly is changing? MusikBot only adds new date headings to Template talk:Did you know. Are we simply doing that in a different place now, or just the structure of the page is changing? — MusikAnimal 18:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: Currently, the "Special occasion holding area" is at the bottom section on Template talk:Did you know/Approved. The approving reviewer moves them there, not the bot. The above discussion was to permanently move the "Special occasion holding area" to the top of that page. What I see, are four editors who support the move, zero editors opposing the move, and three editors who are neutral. — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. So we're not moving the "Special occasion holding area" section on Template talk:Did you know? If not, no changes are needed to MusikBot. It would be a simple fix anyway, if needed. — MusikAnimal 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal, we might move the "special occasion holding area" at WP:DYKNA from bottom to top, if there's consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. So we're not moving the "Special occasion holding area" section on Template talk:Did you know? If not, no changes are needed to MusikBot. It would be a simple fix anyway, if needed. — MusikAnimal 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: Currently, the "Special occasion holding area" is at the bottom section on Template talk:Did you know/Approved. The approving reviewer moves them there, not the bot. The above discussion was to permanently move the "Special occasion holding area" to the top of that page. What I see, are four editors who support the move, zero editors opposing the move, and three editors who are neutral. — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could I get a high-level overview of what exactly is changing? MusikBot only adds new date headings to Template talk:Did you know. Are we simply doing that in a different place now, or just the structure of the page is changing? — MusikAnimal 18:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd want to make sure it didn't get overlooked and forgotten. I'd rather just collapse it and pin it here as a reminder that there are still steps to be taken. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe after this is closed, it should be archived to a separate page for adopted, but unfulfilled, proposals? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- To be quite honest, I probably won't get this done until mid-December. This is a non-trivial change that I'd want to test out before letting it loose, and my schedule's filled with meatspace deadlines, grant review, and arb elections. I'll know more next week after I review the code and come up with a game plan. I'll keep you all posted. — Wug·a·po·des 20:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ah sorry, I generally check my user talk and I'm not as great with checking notifications. Let me know when the other bot operators are planning to make it happen and I can help with DYKHousekeepingBot. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good to know! I actually wondered if that might be the case, as I saw BlueMoonset had posted there multiple times, but I didn't like to nag if you were just busy IRL. :) —valereee (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes, did you see this from Shub? —valereee (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, my attention was elsewhere so I missed this. I'll work on the changes next week and should have something deployed before the 22nd. I'll keep you all updated if it turns out to be sooner than that. I'll post on Shub's talk page as well. — Wug·a·po·des 01:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- DYKHousekeepingBot now supports either top or bottom placement of the Special Occasion Holding Area :) Special:Diff/1059709544 Shubinator (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Wugapodes, how we lookin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- There's an active arb case right now, Wug's first, and four open amendment requests, which seems like a lot. Maybe people were waiting for the new committee? At any rate, maybe we wait to reping Wug until things slow down over there? There's no particular urgency for making this change, and I don't know how much work Wug has to put in to adjust the bot. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- fair enough—this can keep, to be sure theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes, how're things with you? It looks like ArbCom has slowed down a bit? valereee (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee and Theleekycauldron: Things have been better. In addition to my regular job and joining the arbitration committee, I'm recovering from covid which has limited my throughput. The required change to wugbot isn't massive but it's also not trivial. A lot of requests on my time are getting triaged ahead of it, and with covid fatigue it's hard to get deep into backlogged requests, so progress on an otherwise normal-sized change gets slowed. I'll have it running as soon as I can, but my backlog has generally been growing, not shrinking, since December. — Wug·a·po·des 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wug, no worries, and I'm sorry to hear you had COVID! That sucks. IMO this is something that can be treated as completely not-urgent -- welcome when it happens, but nothing more than that. valereee (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee and Theleekycauldron: Things have been better. In addition to my regular job and joining the arbitration committee, I'm recovering from covid which has limited my throughput. The required change to wugbot isn't massive but it's also not trivial. A lot of requests on my time are getting triaged ahead of it, and with covid fatigue it's hard to get deep into backlogged requests, so progress on an otherwise normal-sized change gets slowed. I'll have it running as soon as I can, but my backlog has generally been growing, not shrinking, since December. — Wug·a·po·des 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes, how're things with you? It looks like ArbCom has slowed down a bit? valereee (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- fair enough—this can keep, to be sure theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's an active arb case right now, Wug's first, and four open amendment requests, which seems like a lot. Maybe people were waiting for the new committee? At any rate, maybe we wait to reping Wug until things slow down over there? There's no particular urgency for making this change, and I don't know how much work Wug has to put in to adjust the bot. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Wugapodes, how we lookin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- DYKHousekeepingBot now supports either top or bottom placement of the Special Occasion Holding Area :) Special:Diff/1059709544 Shubinator (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, my attention was elsewhere so I missed this. I'll work on the changes next week and should have something deployed before the 22nd. I'll keep you all updated if it turns out to be sooner than that. I'll post on Shub's talk page as well. — Wug·a·po·des 01:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: the bot isn't open-source, so no, we'll have to wait. In the meantime, we should ping @Wugapodes and MusikAnimal to let them know this change is happening sometime soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is there anyone else who can tweak the bot? It looks like @Shubinator might be taking a break. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Shubinator: I think that's a fine idea, how about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe Shubinator could do the honour of closing (and then tweak the bot). :-) Schwede66 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't, but we're the proposers here so that's probably a decision for someone else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron, do you think we need a formal close? There's no formal opposition, just support/neutral. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
QPQ freebies
While we're on the subject of rule changes and clarifications, Venkat TL recently pointed out that our free pass for new nominators on the QPQ requirement extends to nominators with five DYK credits, instead of those with five DYK nominations—see WP:DYK#gen5 and WP:DYKSG#H4. Does anyone have an objection to changing the language from DYK credits to nominations? I'd argue that a rejected nomination can provide just as much or even more interface with the DYK process (see Venkat TL's failed nominations), so I don't see a reason to not count those towards the limit. Plus, our current rule counts any DYK credit—including from an article creator/expander totally uninvolved in the nomination process—towards the rule, which I fail to understand. If someone else comes along and nominates an article I write with only a passing notification, that's counted as me gaining enough experience with the DYK process to know how to conduct a full review? I think this rule needs some updating. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No objections. Kingsif (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think one of the issues with the current wording is that, theoretically, an editor could nominate as many as 20 nominations without ever having to do a single QPQ, as long as at least 16 of those nominations are unsuccessful or have yet to be approved. In practice, such a form of gaming is unlikely, but the fact that it is possible does sound unfair. In addition, if an editor had more than five DYK credits but none of them were their own nominations, it would probably be a bit unfair for them to do a QPQ since it's possible they had little-to-no exposure to the DYK process before.
- On the other hand, if consensus does decide to change the wording from "credits" to "nominations", the QPQ check tool will probably need to be changed to account for this. For example, perhaps it can count DYK credits and nominations separately, if that's technically feasible. That is, you can check how many nominations an editor created separately from how many DYK credits they've gotten. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: if it helps, I'd be happy to cobble together a tool listing all DYK nominations from a given user. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No objection. --evrik 04:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd object. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- care to elaborate on said objection, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. The point of the QPQ seems to me as a way to encourage editors who frequently nominate DYK articles to actually review them. If people get a lot of failed reviews to start, then it might make more sense to have users succeed at submitting good DYKs before they are compelled to go out and judge other DYKs as good enough or not. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10: fair point—i'm not sure i 100% agree, but I hear that. In any case, we should still probably stipulate that we're talking about successful nominations, and not just any expansion credit, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, if we're talking only about counting successful nominations, then we're actually expanding the QPQ exemption beyond your initial proposal. There's nothing wrong with this in my view, since it isn't the non-nominators focused on expanding articles who are taking up DYK review resources. At the same time, this feels like an uncommon edge case. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Poor reviews can cause problems further down the line. Let's not ask people who don't fully understand the criteria to participate in reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Credits aren't issued if it's an unsuccessful nom, so that won't happen. Indeed, I think it's a neat little bonus that (with this outlined in the instructions) such a rule change could rather discourage editors with failing noms from reviewing others. Though I'd also hope that if someone gets five failed noms in a row, they would reach out for help at the talkpage... or a regular would notice and offer... Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif your last comment is not making any sense to me. Currently the rule is that you need to have 5 "Successful nominations" aka "DYK Credits". The badly written Original Proposal is to modify it to "Nominations" that as I understand includes "unsuccessful nominations too. I agree with Kusma. Venkat TL (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: Well let me explain what you're missing, then. DYK credits are awarded from a semi-automatic system, when a hook goes on the main page. When an article is nominated, the template automatically generates credits for the nominator as well as creator of the article, and updaters or anyone else involved and named in the nomination. When the hook goes into a prep, the prep builder moves the credits to the hook set, and when the hook set goes to the main page, the admin awards all the credits on it - the DYK QPQ tool only checks those credits. So, only successful nominations BUT this includes creators and other editors, not just the nominator. The proposal here is only proposing to change the QPQ counter - or just change the credits automatically generated by the nom template, however leeky does it - to only be for the user who created the nom template. This still requires that the hook goes live, but won't award credit to users who have been involved with the article but not the DYK process. Because at the moment, theoretically, someone can get 5+ DYK credits just from creating articles that other people nominate, and have no knowledge of the system before needing to do a QPQ. Kingsif (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, that is an extreme stretch. You are reading into stuff that just isn't there. @Theleekycauldron can comment if this is what she meant. I will be surprised if she did. @Kingsif you may need to propose this as a separate proposal. Not piggy back your opinions on something else. Venkat TL (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I outlined the current process of awarding DYK credits, how on earth is that my opinion; it preceded my involvement here. And how else, besides amending the credits or counter, would the proposal as it very much actually is be implemented, huh. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif, I will try an example of what TLC wants. TLC wants a user X with 5 unsuccessful DYK Noms to start reviewing DYKs that others have submitted. Implementation is not the problem, the idea is problematic, in my opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with exempting a user who makes, like, five totally spam nominations of non-new articles (on a case-by-case basis). I do have a problem with users who are clearly experienced with the DYK process—users who have received a crash course in sourcing, neutrality, stability, and any other DYK requirement over the course of five nominations of varying viability—still claiming a free pass due to inexperience. I did propose kingsif's idea to mhawk10 as a compromise, so it's not out of the blue. I'd be happy to implement either one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif, I will try an example of what TLC wants. TLC wants a user X with 5 unsuccessful DYK Noms to start reviewing DYKs that others have submitted. Implementation is not the problem, the idea is problematic, in my opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I outlined the current process of awarding DYK credits, how on earth is that my opinion; it preceded my involvement here. And how else, besides amending the credits or counter, would the proposal as it very much actually is be implemented, huh. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, that is an extreme stretch. You are reading into stuff that just isn't there. @Theleekycauldron can comment if this is what she meant. I will be surprised if she did. @Kingsif you may need to propose this as a separate proposal. Not piggy back your opinions on something else. Venkat TL (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: Well let me explain what you're missing, then. DYK credits are awarded from a semi-automatic system, when a hook goes on the main page. When an article is nominated, the template automatically generates credits for the nominator as well as creator of the article, and updaters or anyone else involved and named in the nomination. When the hook goes into a prep, the prep builder moves the credits to the hook set, and when the hook set goes to the main page, the admin awards all the credits on it - the DYK QPQ tool only checks those credits. So, only successful nominations BUT this includes creators and other editors, not just the nominator. The proposal here is only proposing to change the QPQ counter - or just change the credits automatically generated by the nom template, however leeky does it - to only be for the user who created the nom template. This still requires that the hook goes live, but won't award credit to users who have been involved with the article but not the DYK process. Because at the moment, theoretically, someone can get 5+ DYK credits just from creating articles that other people nominate, and have no knowledge of the system before needing to do a QPQ. Kingsif (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif your last comment is not making any sense to me. Currently the rule is that you need to have 5 "Successful nominations" aka "DYK Credits". The badly written Original Proposal is to modify it to "Nominations" that as I understand includes "unsuccessful nominations too. I agree with Kusma. Venkat TL (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10: fair point—i'm not sure i 100% agree, but I hear that. In any case, we should still probably stipulate that we're talking about successful nominations, and not just any expansion credit, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. The point of the QPQ seems to me as a way to encourage editors who frequently nominate DYK articles to actually review them. If people get a lot of failed reviews to start, then it might make more sense to have users succeed at submitting good DYKs before they are compelled to go out and judge other DYKs as good enough or not. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- care to elaborate on said objection, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposal should have been shorter and there was no need to name me. The requirement of 5 "DYK Credit" is not the same as 5 nomination. This proposal is essentially watering down the requirement without considering the ill effects. In my humble opinion, nominating a DYK is just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the current rule demands. Venkat TL (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: My first DYK nomination was SLAPP Suits (nom), over a year ago. As you can see from the nom page, it was approved by the C of E, ran on the main page, and that was that. I didn't gain much experience with the DYK process from that; i saw that it was approved and didn't think much of it. By contrast, failed nominations such as 2022 Karnataka hijab row (nom), Russia (nom), and Curd of Bogra (nom) can actually provide a good introduction to some of the rules that give DYK its rigor—yes, the nominators were unable to address the problems presented, but they'll hopefully know for next time that an article with this problem won't fly. When I build prep sets, I don't learn from the 1,500th hook I promoted correctly; I learn from the mistakes I make, and I'm a better promoter for next time. My point is, not all successful reviews are substantial; not all failed reviews are open-and-shut. Why count one, but not the other? And why count credits, when not every credited user is a nominator? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Object to current language, as "nominations" implies only the DYKs where you nominated it. So if someone nominated an article with you as an updater, then that should count as 1 of the 5, regardless of whether the DYK was successful or not in my opinion. Whether a DYK passes or fails, it's still taking user's time to do the review of it, and so once someone has done 5 nominations, they should be reviewing others' work. The more free passes we give, the larger the backlog will become on average. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm struggling with your logic a bit here; if I create an article, and someone else nominates it successfully, that should count towards one of my five freebies? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it should. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm struggling with your logic a bit here; if I create an article, and someone else nominates it successfully, that should count towards one of my five freebies? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would be opposed to such an interpretation. As far as the spirit of the QPQ requirement goes, I think it's meant to really be for the nominator rather than for the contributor or expander (assuming they're two separate people). If, for example, an editor had five or more DYK credits but none of them were their own nominations, then they decide to finally nominate on their own, it would be unfair to require them to do a QPQ if they had no exposure to the DYK process beforehand. On the other hand, if an editor has had five or more nominations, by that point they should already be expected to know how DYK works and thus should be better equipped to do reviews. No whether or not such reviews would be adequate ones is another discussion entirely, but the point is, personally, it would be more fair for the requirement to apply to nominators than to non-nominating editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, but credits were given to both nominator and creator/expander at DYK for many years, once the loophole that allowed a nominator to nominate for a creator and neither of them had to do a QPQ was closed. The spirit was for everyone involved to take credit and responsibility: one would certainly hope that a creator whose work was being nominated again and again would pay some attention to DYK and be ready if it came to them nominating one of their own, and for the very few this affected, they generally found their way or someone volunteered to donate a QPQ while they got up to speed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would be opposed to such an interpretation. As far as the spirit of the QPQ requirement goes, I think it's meant to really be for the nominator rather than for the contributor or expander (assuming they're two separate people). If, for example, an editor had five or more DYK credits but none of them were their own nominations, then they decide to finally nominate on their own, it would be unfair to require them to do a QPQ if they had no exposure to the DYK process beforehand. On the other hand, if an editor has had five or more nominations, by that point they should already be expected to know how DYK works and thus should be better equipped to do reviews. No whether or not such reviews would be adequate ones is another discussion entirely, but the point is, personally, it would be more fair for the requirement to apply to nominators than to non-nominating editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding was that back when we had the RfC that set up the mechanism for having experienced nominators doing two QPQs per nomination in times when the unreviewed backlog got out of hand, we changed "five credits" to "five nominations". So regardless of what various pages may say—doubtless because they were never updated after the RfC—it is currently five nominations. The assumption has been that this means five successful nominations, each of which resulted in promotion to the main page—in part, I imagine, because those are the only ones that are easy to track. Nominators are expected to be the point person for a nomination, making sure necessary fixes are made, and they get credits for all articles they nominate that are promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset The badly written proposal intends to replace "successful nominations" as explained in your comment to just "nominations" that includes failed nominations. Which in my opinion is problematic and watering down of quality of DYK review process. Venkat TL (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Venkat TL, I've personally long felt that failed nominations should count, because they typically take up as much or more reviewer time trying to get the nominator to make important improvements to the article. It has always bothered me that a QPQ submitted for a nomination that failed can then be reused on a subsequent nomination, possibly more than once, before a nomination finally succeeds. But the standard has been successful nominations, and there seems to be enough pushback here to "all nominations" (and even to nominations instead of credits, though at this point it would require an RfC to change back to credits) that it's unlikely to change. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion quality trumps quantity. I personally would not want folks with less than 5 "Successful DYKs" reviewing my noms. Hence I have opposed this proposal. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Venkat TL, I've personally long felt that failed nominations should count, because they typically take up as much or more reviewer time trying to get the nominator to make important improvements to the article. It has always bothered me that a QPQ submitted for a nomination that failed can then be reused on a subsequent nomination, possibly more than once, before a nomination finally succeeds. But the standard has been successful nominations, and there seems to be enough pushback here to "all nominations" (and even to nominations instead of credits, though at this point it would require an RfC to change back to credits) that it's unlikely to change. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I can't find that change in the RfC you mentioned, where might it be? Also, you can't re-use a QPQ from a failed nomination, can you? WP:DYK#gen5 says "for every nomination"... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, the change from credits to nominations in determining QPQ status is effected right at the top:
At the time of nomination ... (a) if the nominator has previously nominated fewer than 5 articles (self-nominations or otherwise), no QPQ is required
. That makes it unambiguously nominations with the passage of that RfC and not credits. There was discussion over this precise point during the RfC, and nomination was deliberately used. As for the QPQ reuse, I don't remember if gen5 has always been worded that way, but nominators would frequently reuse QPQ reviews if their original nomination was withdrawn when faced with failure (and I think sometimes even if failed), and I don't recall anyone ever being called out for doing so. I'd be perfectly happy if gen5 were used to prevent reuse going forward. I don't know how many reviewers take the step of checking whether the submitted QPQ has been used before... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, the change from credits to nominations in determining QPQ status is effected right at the top:
- @BlueMoonset The badly written proposal intends to replace "successful nominations" as explained in your comment to just "nominations" that includes failed nominations. Which in my opinion is problematic and watering down of quality of DYK review process. Venkat TL (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- To answer your specific query, I check most of the time whether a QPQ has links to more than one nomination template. Schwede66 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do the same; and I remember getting called out because I absent-mindedly used the same QPQ twice. So, I know users are on the lookout for it, at least... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: The wording doesn't seem to be clear. By "nominated fewer than 5 articles", does that mean they must do their QPQ beginning with their fifth nomination, or after their fifth nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: that's pretty much analogous to the rule in WP:DYK#gen5 anyway, so it'd suggest that anyone with five nominations/credits loses their immunity to the QPQ requirement. "five is not fewer than five" is a funny phrase to say out loud theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, "previously" is key here: if you've previously nominated five articles, then you're subject to QPQ; if you've previously nominated fewer than five, you aren't. So if you've had two previous nominations that made it to the main page (with no failures) and have three in process, a new nomination will require a QPQ because you've made five previous nominations. If, on the other hand, you've had four on the main page and no failures, you're not subject to QPQ with your new, fifth nomination, because you only have four previous noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: So basically, Venkat must provide QPQs for his currently open nominations? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Relax. WP:RFC is that way. Any sneaky attempts to sidestep or avoid wider community consensus will be reverted. Things are working well, if you plan to break it, have an RfC first. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: So basically, Venkat must provide QPQs for his currently open nominations? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, "previously" is key here: if you've previously nominated five articles, then you're subject to QPQ; if you've previously nominated fewer than five, you aren't. So if you've had two previous nominations that made it to the main page (with no failures) and have three in process, a new nomination will require a QPQ because you've made five previous nominations. If, on the other hand, you've had four on the main page and no failures, you're not subject to QPQ with your new, fifth nomination, because you only have four previous noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: that's pretty much analogous to the rule in WP:DYK#gen5 anyway, so it'd suggest that anyone with five nominations/credits loses their immunity to the QPQ requirement. "five is not fewer than five" is a funny phrase to say out loud theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- To answer your specific query, I check most of the time whether a QPQ has links to more than one nomination template. Schwede66 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- TLDR Theleekycauldron through this proposal, wants a user with 5 'unsuccessful' DYK Noms to compulsorily judge DYKs that others have submitted. This is a significant watering down of the current WP:DYKRULES that require 5 'successful DYKs before they can review. I believe an RfC will be needed to adopt such a major change. Venkat TL (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm currently a bit too worked up to make a proper response, but I will say that's not at all what i want. Summarizing can be dangerous, in its tendency to omit nuance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @TLC, your proposal (if adopted), will allow this to happen. Yes/No? Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's not that simple. To start, I say in the diff that you linked to that such a situation would be less than ideal, and that (given its rarity) we could exempt on a case-by-case basis if the reviewer feels that the nominator is still too inexperienced for a competent review. That said, it's highly unlikely that such a scenario would arise—think about it. That would have to mean that on four separate occasions, a user made a DYK nomination without even reading the rejection message from the previous nomination. I would be astonished to find that more than a handful of users exist in that category—and even more astonished if one of them suddenly made a sixth nomination that was completely viable, save for a QPQ they were too incompetent to carry out. In addition, I also say in the diff you linked that I would support kingsif's idea, as i'd already proposed it to Mhawk10 as a compromise. Kingsif's idea was that a user must make five successful nominations (merely being a creator or expander doesn't count)—this removes the clause where someone can nominate five of my articles, blowing through my freebies without me ever gaining any experience with the DYK process. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are failing to admit, but the short answer to my Yes/No question is Yes. Your proposal will allow this to happen. There is nothing in your proposal to stop this from happening. It is not possible to check and permit every DYK reviewer. People have to read the rules and make their judgement based on what is written in the WP:DYKRULES. The creator vs nominator issue is separate from your proposal and you better not muddy up the water by mixing it here. Venkat TL (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's not that simple. To start, I say in the diff that you linked to that such a situation would be less than ideal, and that (given its rarity) we could exempt on a case-by-case basis if the reviewer feels that the nominator is still too inexperienced for a competent review. That said, it's highly unlikely that such a scenario would arise—think about it. That would have to mean that on four separate occasions, a user made a DYK nomination without even reading the rejection message from the previous nomination. I would be astonished to find that more than a handful of users exist in that category—and even more astonished if one of them suddenly made a sixth nomination that was completely viable, save for a QPQ they were too incompetent to carry out. In addition, I also say in the diff you linked that I would support kingsif's idea, as i'd already proposed it to Mhawk10 as a compromise. Kingsif's idea was that a user must make five successful nominations (merely being a creator or expander doesn't count)—this removes the clause where someone can nominate five of my articles, blowing through my freebies without me ever gaining any experience with the DYK process. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @TLC, your proposal (if adopted), will allow this to happen. Yes/No? Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm currently a bit too worked up to make a proper response, but I will say that's not at all what i want. Summarizing can be dangerous, in its tendency to omit nuance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment This sneaky attempt to push the proposal without going for an RfC for this major change has been reverted. Please do not add this without generating a wider consensus for this change of WP:DYKRULES Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: this
RfC on proposal to require a second QPQ from "senior" DYK editors (those with 20+ DYK credits) when there's a backlog of unreviewed nominations
also provides for the switch from credits to nominations. Take care! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)- @Theleekycauldron thank you for the link of the 8 months old RfC. I read the page. I see that the RfC statement, used the word "DYK nominations" and used it to mean "DYK CREDITS", Now you are changing the meaning of the word and including unsuccessful nominations too. I still suggest you initiate a fresh RfC with neutral wording to state this clearly that unsuccessful nominations too would be counted as DYK CREDITs. Currently they are not counted as DYK CREDITS, and this is still a major departure from the existing rules, Hence my objections to your modification of the WP:DYKRULE. Venkat TL (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: That wasn't quite my understanding.
I see that the RfC statement, used the word "DYK nominations" and used it to mean "DYK CREDITS"
. Well, there were two proposals in the RfC—the first one (which correlates with the title of the RfC that says "DYK credits") does count DYK credits. However, the proposal explicitly changed its wording from "DYK credits" to "nominations" in the second take of the proposal (found at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 182#Take 2 -- Everyone please vote again on revised proposal) to prevent some confusions about when the requirement kicks in. Rest assured, the two terms are not used interchangeably in the RfC, and you're welcome to ask the creators of the proposal to confirm. One of those creators is BlueMoonset, who said earlier in this discussion thatmy understanding was that back when we had the RfC that set up the mechanism for having experienced nominators doing two QPQs per nomination in times when the unreviewed backlog got out of hand, we changed "five credits" to "five nominations".
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)- I think I disagree with summary you are suggesting. The RfC proposal seems to have not considered unsuccessful nominations. Instead the main thrust of the RfC was on "Pending nominations" and the 20 nom rule for 2 QPQ. In any case 6 months have passed and we should have a fresh RfC for this change. If the community consensus wants to ask failed DYK noms to start reviewing, I will agree. Please propose the neutral draft for RfC. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Venkat TL, you may disagree, but the RfC was approved and is currently what we should be working with. Unless there is a new RfC that is subsequently approved—and aside from you, I don't see anyone eager for one—that most recent approved RfC is how DYK is supposed to operate. You don't get to pick which community consensus you wish to agree with, you have to go by the most recent one. Where DYK has fallen down is in not modifying the "rules" to reflect the new consensus when it was reached in the RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- On that note, I've done my best to implement the full proposal in WP:DYK#gen5. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Venkat TL, you may disagree, but the RfC was approved and is currently what we should be working with. Unless there is a new RfC that is subsequently approved—and aside from you, I don't see anyone eager for one—that most recent approved RfC is how DYK is supposed to operate. You don't get to pick which community consensus you wish to agree with, you have to go by the most recent one. Where DYK has fallen down is in not modifying the "rules" to reflect the new consensus when it was reached in the RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think I disagree with summary you are suggesting. The RfC proposal seems to have not considered unsuccessful nominations. Instead the main thrust of the RfC was on "Pending nominations" and the 20 nom rule for 2 QPQ. In any case 6 months have passed and we should have a fresh RfC for this change. If the community consensus wants to ask failed DYK noms to start reviewing, I will agree. Please propose the neutral draft for RfC. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: That wasn't quite my understanding.
- @Theleekycauldron thank you for the link of the 8 months old RfC. I read the page. I see that the RfC statement, used the word "DYK nominations" and used it to mean "DYK CREDITS", Now you are changing the meaning of the word and including unsuccessful nominations too. I still suggest you initiate a fresh RfC with neutral wording to state this clearly that unsuccessful nominations too would be counted as DYK CREDITs. Currently they are not counted as DYK CREDITS, and this is still a major departure from the existing rules, Hence my objections to your modification of the WP:DYKRULE. Venkat TL (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL: this
QPQs and User:Venkat TL
I wondered why Venkat TL, as a relative DYK-newbie, is expressing such strong opinions on matters QPQ. I've looked into this and found:
- QPQ check shows four credits: Our Hindu Rashtra, To Kill a Democracy, 2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election, and Stray cow
- There are currently five DYK nominations pending:
- What the five current nominations have in common is that they were all nominated with "Reviewed: Exempt" for the QPQ requirement.
- In addition, there
is oneare (at least) three failed nominations (amended based on Narutolovehinata5's input below):
- As an aside, what the nominations have in common once a review starts is that there is a lengthy back-and-forth going on. To review this user's nominations appears to be "hard work".
Clearly, the next time one of those open DYK nominations makes it to the front page, the remaining nominations require QPQ. Claiming to be "Exempt" in all five cases is not a good look. And do not attempt to WP:GAME this, Venkat TL, because the moment we get the impression that you do, we promote one of those nominations and let the other four sit there until you meet the QPQ requirement. I therefore suggest that you start adding QPQs to at least four of those nominations. Schwede66 22:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- He also has at least two other failed DYK nominations: Template:Did you know nominations/Bulli Bai case and Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka. That would mean twelve nominations without a single QPQ. There is some confusion as to when wording of when QPQs kick in, but personally, having that many nominations without doing a single QPQ is at the very least, odd. I'm still not sure if it's allowed or not, but in my almost six years on DYK, I have never seen a similar case to this before. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: re-ping due to a typo in my previous ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 On top of that, Venkat TL said on your talk page that you were editing DYK based on your ego when this was brought up there. Venkat TL then started an argument on theleekycauldron's talk page when their comment was redacted as a personal attack. I'm not sure if its gaming the system, but it is very much being uncivil and assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- three times, actually: here, here, and here. I tried to strike the second one, leading to the aforementioned discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 On top of that, Venkat TL said on your talk page that you were editing DYK based on your ego when this was brought up there. Venkat TL then started an argument on theleekycauldron's talk page when their comment was redacted as a personal attack. I'm not sure if its gaming the system, but it is very much being uncivil and assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: you forgot to add Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown into this list? How could you miss this when you did not miss the DYK I submitted few hours ago today? How convenient? Perhaps because it spoiled the entire conspiracy.
To answer the most BURNING question in your mind, why I am being so vocal against this harebrained proposal? I have already explained every aspect of my opposition in my comments if you would have cared enough to read them. It is not that hard to understand. My vocal opposition is because I will be impacted by this proposal, and not in a good way as far as I can foresee. My DYKs have already been suffering because of bad quality of reviewing or hostile reviewers far more concerned about striking line-items on this page than improving Misplaced Pages. I dont see the situation improving if we start allowing people with failed DYKs reviewing DYKs by others. So here I am speaking for myself. You have a problem with that?
I find this extremely concerning that this admin named Schwede66, "a relative DYK expert", is making extreme bad faith arguments against me and plotting schemes. He seems to have checked my entire DYK history and with all those failed nominations (failed deliberately and inappropriately in most cases citing WP:BUREAUCRACY) And yet failed to notice, that 3 hours before he made this extremely Assume bad faith post, I had already reviewed my first ever DYK. (Yes, go ahead, and check the time stamps.)
Now I am not going to believe that this admin, with more than 200,000 edits, who has crawled my entire contributions history, and assisted by minions above, failed to notice that I had already reviewed a DYK without anyone lecturing me about it, so that leaves me with other reason that there are some sinister intentions against me. So Admin Schwede66, tell me what 'evil, no good plans' you have in mind for me? Another fascinating point that I noted, 3 more "relative DYK experts", commented as reply to the original bad faith post by Schwede66, (namely SL93, narutolovehinata5 and Theleekycauldron) and yet at the time of this writing, none of these 3 noticed my DYK review or cared to point it out on this thread.) Is this some kind of deliberate group blindness? I hope I will hear better excuses than sorry I failed to notice that. --Venkat TL (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, what an attitude. No wonder your reviews generate so much discussion. I compiled my list from the following sources:
- The QPQ check tool
- Template talk:Did you know (hence why a three-hour-old nomination is included, and there I did see that you reviewed a nomination but that isn't relevant and hence I didn't comment on it; what is relevant is for you to add reviews to your nominations)
- your talk page and your talk page archive (where I checked for DYK notices)
- Hence I missed the two items that Narutolovehinata5 mentioned plus the item you now mention; you never received notifications about those (or at least there aren't any in your archive). Schwede66 01:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, now that I have taken the wind out of your scheming plans, you will talk about attitude, as a distraction. Of course that DYK you admit you deliberately left out, of your bad faith post, is entirely relevant to this discussion but hey, why let facts come in the way of a 'good story'? Venkat TL (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Attitude isn’t a distraction, Venkat TL - it’s actually one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. A continued lack of civility toward other editors will have consequences, as I’m sure you’re already aware. You appear to be on thin ice, but there’s still time to change course. Doing so will require being open to questions and criticism, rather than responding with accusations of bad faith and claims that editors are conspiring against you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ezlev FWIW, I will state that I talked to exactly nobody before I posted my analysis above. Schwede66 02:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Bad faith comments that deliberately omit facts and build a false narrative for malicious purpose will be called out for what they are. Venkat TL (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Attitude isn’t a distraction, Venkat TL - it’s actually one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. A continued lack of civility toward other editors will have consequences, as I’m sure you’re already aware. You appear to be on thin ice, but there’s still time to change course. Doing so will require being open to questions and criticism, rather than responding with accusations of bad faith and claims that editors are conspiring against you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, now that I have taken the wind out of your scheming plans, you will talk about attitude, as a distraction. Of course that DYK you admit you deliberately left out, of your bad faith post, is entirely relevant to this discussion but hey, why let facts come in the way of a 'good story'? Venkat TL (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, despite this problematic behavior, Venkat TL has been active in editing the main Misplaced Pages:Did you know page. I am starting to think a topic ban may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban. Nothing they've done at DYK has been productive and collaborative- they're wanting to just post highly charged political articles, and avoid doing QPQs. It's like the controversial Northern Ireland hooks debacle again, just this time with controversial Indian politics articles instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you know you are making allegations without any basis. I suggest you read my response above, before making another comment on this thread. Provide diffs for your claim that "I want to avoid doing QPQs" or strike off your false allegations. Venkat TL (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've seen the DYKs you've nominated, they've been massively controversial and a time sink, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka you opened a massive time sink thread after it was rejected, and this whole discussion about DYK nominations seems like a clear gaming of the system so you don't have to do as many QPQs. Which considering that QPQ is a basic level of collaboration with the project, is another reason why it seems all you want to do here is promote controversial Indian politics topics. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- In case you dont know yet, 3 hours before OP made this baseless thread, I had already reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown, but you carry on with your agenda of denigrating me and making baseless personal attacks without diffs. Venkat TL (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I can see you've done one. But you've made more than 6 nominations, so owe more than 1. Doing 1 QPQ to prove a point and try and "win" an argument isn't the right way. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- In case you dont know yet, 3 hours before OP made this baseless thread, I had already reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown, but you carry on with your agenda of denigrating me and making baseless personal attacks without diffs. Venkat TL (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've seen the DYKs you've nominated, they've been massively controversial and a time sink, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka you opened a massive time sink thread after it was rejected, and this whole discussion about DYK nominations seems like a clear gaming of the system so you don't have to do as many QPQs. Which considering that QPQ is a basic level of collaboration with the project, is another reason why it seems all you want to do here is promote controversial Indian politics topics. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you know you are making allegations without any basis. I suggest you read my response above, before making another comment on this thread. Provide diffs for your claim that "I want to avoid doing QPQs" or strike off your false allegations. Venkat TL (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban. Nothing they've done at DYK has been productive and collaborative- they're wanting to just post highly charged political articles, and avoid doing QPQs. It's like the controversial Northern Ireland hooks debacle again, just this time with controversial Indian politics articles instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Price of the Modi Years has now been promoted, so Venkat now needs to provide QPQs for all his open nominations if he hasn't already. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Clarification?
@BlueMoonset, Schwede66, and Theleekycauldron: Probably could be tweaked in the rules. I'm pinging BlueMoonset as the editor with probably more dealings with the rules than the rest of us. Maybe I keep my own records differently, but I've been tracking my own thusly: DYK-ReviewsCount. I also keep a couple of other tracking lists on mine. However, my personal method is dependant upon my own diligence to keep it up to date. There needs to be a procedure/guideline that works for everybody and is easy to check. And they have brought up a good point, whether or not it should be based on nominations that make it to the main page, or does it include multiple nominations that are still to be reviewed? I think that's the point of the comments by Leek and Schwede. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- My own system is much more simple, Maile. When I do a review, I add it to the list that's in the lead of User:Schwede66/DYK. When I use one of the reviews, I delete it from that list. Schwede66 02:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- And regarding the main point that I'm making, there are four credits and five open nominations. The moment that one of the open ones hits the main page, the remaining nominations need a QPQ. It does not usually happen that we have a newby with so many active nominations just as the QPQ requirement is about to kick in. But that's the case here. The "I don't need to do QPQs" as part of so many nominations just does not sit right with me. Schwede66 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Another bad faith comment that attempts to build up a false narrative by putting words in my mouth. I never said that "I don't need to do QPQs", this user deliberately did not give a diff. This kind of conduct is unbecoming of an admin. In fact at more than one location on this page and others, I have said that I will provide QPQ when I am required to. Venkat TL (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely @Schwede66:. But we need to come up with some added verbage to cover this in the future, as well as now. I don't think we anticipated such a prolific editor. And @Venkat TL: I understand you are fairly new on Misplaced Pages, and I've been sitting here trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on your defensive attitude.You've done so much in such a short time, that we need to sort it out how to handle it. But if you keep up the attitude you've been expressing here, you're going to end up defending yourself at WP:ANI — Maile (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did not start this unnecessary thread here, nor I asked them to spin stories about me. I am being attacked here. I will defend myself whenever and wherever I deem necessary. They are making a fuss about a non issue. Once my QPQ check shows 5 DYK credits, as per the DYKRULES I will start providing QPQs. I doubt that QPQ is the real concern here, they are aiming bigger targets by attacking me. Venkat TL (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely @Schwede66:. But we need to come up with some added verbage to cover this in the future, as well as now. I don't think we anticipated such a prolific editor. And @Venkat TL: I understand you are fairly new on Misplaced Pages, and I've been sitting here trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on your defensive attitude.You've done so much in such a short time, that we need to sort it out how to handle it. But if you keep up the attitude you've been expressing here, you're going to end up defending yourself at WP:ANI — Maile (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, Maile, Schwede, I have a full table to record mine; which brings me to a suggestion - is there a way to show QPQs vs noms? Just a tool to record how many QPQs a user fills out on their nomination templates, compared to how many nom templates they create. It'll show pretty clearly if someone is going to go over 5 freebies, if making a lot of noms early before any pass. Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: I don't know who created the QPQ check, so can't answer that question. You really took a lot of care with your Reviews full table. I also do something similar to your table, but no images or anything: User:Maile66/DYKReview, but I don't count QPQ in this one. On a technicality, I could probably skate on the QPQs forever, on the old reviews. But I like to give a current review now and then. It just seems like good practice, and a good example to set. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Prep 5: Afternoon of a Faun (Robbins)
@Theleekycauldron: I'm not happy with the modified hook. Currently in prep as below:
- ... that the 1953 ballet Afternoon of a Faun (pictured) is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if they were the mirror?
I used "Jerome Robbins' ballet" rather than "the 1953 ballet" in the nomination. The year doesn't tell us anything major about the ballet. The choreographer's name let the readers know that he's involved with why the dancers look at the audience like a mirror. There are multiple ballets named Afternoon of a Faun, as indicated by a paragraph in the article, and the existence of the article Afternoon of a Faun (Nijinsky), which some view as the more famous version. In my opinion, the choreographer, rather than the year, helps differentiate the various versions. Also, Robbins is somewhat famous outside of the ballet world - he won an Oscar for co-directing the original West Side Story film, and worked extensively on Broadway, for which he won five Tonys, surely his name is worth mentioning in the hook. Corachow (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, Corachow! I agree that the hook could benefit from having robbins in it; what I'll is that I modified it mainly because the original hook would have needed parenthetical commas around the article and (pictured), which made the flow of the hook a little janky. If you have an ALT that mentions Robbins and gets around that, I'd be happy to implement :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I don't find the flow of the hook janky at all. If you insist, the following is the ALT from the nomination.
- ... that when Jerome Robbins choreographed the ballet Afternoon of a Faun (pictured), he took inspiration from dancers looking at themselves in the mirror?
- I don't think this hook work as well for people who had never seen the ballet. Alternatively I'll just go with something completely different. Still far prefer the original with Robbins included, or some way to rephrase it to convey the same message. Corachow (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Corachow: I don't think that's as good either; i was only saying that punctuation corrected, the original looks like this:
- ... that Jerome Robbins' ballet, Afternoon of a Faun (pictured), is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if it is the mirror?
- So maybe we change it to:
- ... that Jerome Robbins' Afternoon of a Faun (pictured) is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if they were the mirror?
- Or, for quirk-by-omission:
- ... that in Jerome Robbins' ballet, Afternoon of a Faun (pictured), the audience serves as a mirror?
- but if you don't want to spring for that, that's fine :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I think you misread the my original hook then. As shown in the nomination, there isn't a comma between "ballet" and "Afternoon". Corachow (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think theleekycauldron is saying that, although there wasn't a comma between "ballet" and "afternoon", gramatically speaking, there should have been a comma there, but she didn't like it with the comma, so she rephrased it to eliminate the need for a comma. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see, my bad. I much prefer "Jerome Robbins' Afternoon of a Faun..." over the omitted version. The only problem is that it doesn't say it's a ballet, but hopefully the word "dancers" and the picture can help, or we can change it to "ballet dancers". Corachow (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ping theleekycauldron. Corachow (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, couldn't you just add "the", like you did in your 1953 hook? eg. "... that the Jerome Robbins ballet Afternoon of a Faun (pictured) is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if they were the mirror?" MeegsC (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @MeegsC: While that would technically be grammatical, names are usually only used as adjectives when the artist achieves a certain level of notoriety—e.g. a Bach cantata, a Verdi opera, a Beatles song. Extending that honour to Jerome Robbins wasn't something I was quite comfortable pulling off. However, I will swap in the suggestion Corachow liked. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- ah, looks like it's in queue. Could one of our DYK admins please swap in the third bulleted suggestion to Queue 5: Afternoon of a Faun (Robbins) (nom)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, couldn't you just add "the", like you did in your 1953 hook? eg. "... that the Jerome Robbins ballet Afternoon of a Faun (pictured) is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if they were the mirror?" MeegsC (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ping theleekycauldron. Corachow (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see, my bad. I much prefer "Jerome Robbins' Afternoon of a Faun..." over the omitted version. The only problem is that it doesn't say it's a ballet, but hopefully the word "dancers" and the picture can help, or we can change it to "ballet dancers". Corachow (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think theleekycauldron is saying that, although there wasn't a comma between "ballet" and "afternoon", gramatically speaking, there should have been a comma there, but she didn't like it with the comma, so she rephrased it to eliminate the need for a comma. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I think you misread the my original hook then. As shown in the nomination, there isn't a comma between "ballet" and "Afternoon". Corachow (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I don't find the flow of the hook janky at all. If you insist, the following is the ALT from the nomination.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Sorry to bother you, but the new hook on the queue is not the one I like. The one I prefer is the following.
- ... that Jerome Robbins' Afternoon of a Faun (pictured) is set in a dance studio, with the dancers facing the audience as if they were the mirror? Corachow (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done (again) — Maile (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Sorry to bother you, but the new hook on the queue is not the one I like. The one I prefer is the following.
Can we get some help getting these two stalled February nominations moving?
These two February nominations from Gerda Arendt are stalled. At Template:Did you know nominations/Germaine Bailac, Gerda doesn't like any of the proposed hooks and she seems to only like the hook that has no consensus. Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaja Harnoncourt has a common hook which is just a woman marrying a widower with children from a previous marriage. I'm asking for help here because all that the participants have received are lengthy responses that don't fix anything. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @SL93: I've left a message on the Ladislaja Harnoncourt nom template. It's just a story about a woman who married and had children. There's nothing else there, nothing remarkable about the family. As for the Germaine Bailac, the sources are non-English, so I won't attempt that one. — Maile (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- To misquote Vizzini, working on hooks with Gerda is like making the mistake of fighting a land war in Asia. I will look and see if I can offer an opinion. --evrik 03:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I lost all interest in Bailac weeks ago (said so on SL93's talk) and unwatched, - I hate when all we say about an accomplished performer is how often she did something but do what you want. Harnoncourt: getting ready for women's month, I thought it was unfair to have covered four sons, but not the mother and the daughters. - I am all for peace. Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt: the matriarchs don't always get the coverage they deserve to make the best hook, unfortunately. would you like to withdraw the nomination, or allow others to pick the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll look, am not quite awake yet. I proposed to have it for mothers day, isn't that quirky, for once? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt: the matriarchs don't always get the coverage they deserve to make the best hook, unfortunately. would you like to withdraw the nomination, or allow others to pick the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Prep 1: Francis Childs (printer) (nom)
- ... that Francis Childs was the publisher and printer of The New York Daily Advertiser, the third daily newspaper to appear in the United States, in 1785?
Okay, I'm sorry, I should've made myself clear. I thought we'd work out a compromise without me ever having to go there, but as the hook was promoted, I feel I should bring it up. Simply put, I just don't find this hook to be very interesting to a broad audience. We've run a lot of publisher/printer/newspaper hooks over the past few months—some of these have actually been pretty excellent, like The Constitutional Courant (nom) The Constitutional Courant (nom), despite generally below-average pageview counts. But I think highlighting that someone published and printed (did he found it?) not the first, but the third daily newspaper in just one country...
Listen, I'm happy to back off if consensus disagrees—it's entirely possible that I'm wrong. However, I just don't think this hook should run in current form. Pinging @Gwillhickers, Lil-unique1, and Z1720: as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was the promoter of this hook. While I do not think this hook is the most thrilling thing we have run on DYK, there are lots of hooks that appear in DYK that I don't find interesting. However, this hook had been open since March 3, was one of the hooks at the top of the approved list, and had been approved by a reviewer. The nominator felt that the information about The New York Daily Advertiser being the third newspaper printed in the US was important. I wanted to honour the nominator's wish, as ultimately DYK would not have articles on the main page without our nominators. I appreciate others suggesting better hooks (and I have done the same thing myself) but I decided that, after a long wait, it was time to promote this. If others believe another hook should be used (like the proposed ALT2) then I will not oppose this. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron — Clearly this is a matter of opinion. Even the mention of printing laws isn't any guarantee it will appeal to a broad audience. I really don't think the founding of a newspaper, "in just one country", is something to be brushed off so readily. Founding a newspaper, the third in a country like the United States, at a time when the newspaper industry was in its infancy, is a distinguished accomplishment. Printing laws, though a big responsibility, was just a job and shouldn't be something that takes a front seat to Childs' accomplishment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Leak, @Gwillhickers: - this is one of those topics where, if you're someone like me and fascinated by American history of that era, or even just an interest in newspaper history, it catches your eye. If not, maybe no hook will work. Maybe all DYK hooks are like that. One thing I did find interesting, is that when Childs and Swaine got the contract to publish the Laws of Congress, not only did the Government pay an agreed upon fee for the printing, but also provided the paper supply on which they would be printed. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, actually it was a common practice for a government agency, be it county, state or federal, to supply paper, ink etc, for a given printing commission, esp since it usually involved appreciable amounts of paper, which often times could be scarce. Private commissions could go either way, depending, but usually printers supplied the wherewithal in those cases, rather than having a private customer go out and procure those things. In such cases, the cost of materials was factored into the overall agreement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Maile66 and Gwillhickers: my apologies for the rant in advance. I think my thing boils down to the idea that every hook has two independent qualities: interestingness and hookiness. Some hooks are both interesting and hooky; some hooks are interesting but not hooky; some hooks are hooky but not interesting; and some hooks are the textual equivalent of the colour beige. The difference, in my head, is that an interesting hook gives good information on its face. You read it, and you go "hmm! that's pretty cool", but you don't really want to learn more. You just go about your day, storing this fact somewhere in the back of your head. By contrast, a purely hooky hook doesn't impart any substantial information, but it does pique the reader's interest to the point where they want to click through, read the article, and really dig into all the interesting nuggets in the article. April Fools' Day is when we celebrate having hooky hooks with very little raw interest value, and I love it. The best hooks, of course, are the ones that have ample and excellent hookiness that also gives those less inclined to click something neat to walk away with. So, it's not even that I read this hook and find it dull; I actually think it's pretty cool that Childs founded a major newspaper, and the fact that it was just the third in the United States. In that sense, I think the hook is absolutely interesting to a broad audience. I think a good 70% of those who read the hook are gonna regard that as pretty cool, and not give it much more thought. However, while purely hooky hooks can sometimes be too insubstantial or even clickbaity, purely interesting hooks leave no reason for the reader to want to find out more, and that's a real shame. Because of the lack of hookiness in this hook, it won't get readers to click, and I think that DYK should strive to enchant those looking for a reason to click. Those who are but fish floating around, looking for inspiration, looking for a reason to be reeled in by the hook for a two-hour adventure that starts with an article you found off the main page and ends with a complete understanding of the 1902 Kosher Meat Boycott. This is, in my view, the danger of being adamant that hooks should trumpet the key accomplishment of a historical or contemporary figure—it kind of admits defeat. It assumes that users won't find a reason to click, and therefore tries to jam as much information to give to the reader without them clicking, without them ever wanting to click through. Insubstantial hooks are, of course, a problem of their own, but we should be careful about these extremes and strive for hooks that have both a reasonable amount of hookiness and interestingness. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- No rant my friend. At the risk of sounding patronizing, it's clear your heart is in this discussion. I'll do what I can to expand on Childs' involvement in printing the first laws that were established after American independence. Not a menial task at all. Printers and publishers were the 'internet' in those days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers: 'preciate it, thanks :) it's not just this hook—this style has been making me simmer for quite a bit (there's been an uptick as of late), so I figured I'd lay out my thinking in general, in case this comes up or I want to write a real essay on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- No rant my friend. At the risk of sounding patronizing, it's clear your heart is in this discussion. I'll do what I can to expand on Childs' involvement in printing the first laws that were established after American independence. Not a menial task at all. Printers and publishers were the 'internet' in those days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Maile66 and Gwillhickers: my apologies for the rant in advance. I think my thing boils down to the idea that every hook has two independent qualities: interestingness and hookiness. Some hooks are both interesting and hooky; some hooks are interesting but not hooky; some hooks are hooky but not interesting; and some hooks are the textual equivalent of the colour beige. The difference, in my head, is that an interesting hook gives good information on its face. You read it, and you go "hmm! that's pretty cool", but you don't really want to learn more. You just go about your day, storing this fact somewhere in the back of your head. By contrast, a purely hooky hook doesn't impart any substantial information, but it does pique the reader's interest to the point where they want to click through, read the article, and really dig into all the interesting nuggets in the article. April Fools' Day is when we celebrate having hooky hooks with very little raw interest value, and I love it. The best hooks, of course, are the ones that have ample and excellent hookiness that also gives those less inclined to click something neat to walk away with. So, it's not even that I read this hook and find it dull; I actually think it's pretty cool that Childs founded a major newspaper, and the fact that it was just the third in the United States. In that sense, I think the hook is absolutely interesting to a broad audience. I think a good 70% of those who read the hook are gonna regard that as pretty cool, and not give it much more thought. However, while purely hooky hooks can sometimes be too insubstantial or even clickbaity, purely interesting hooks leave no reason for the reader to want to find out more, and that's a real shame. Because of the lack of hookiness in this hook, it won't get readers to click, and I think that DYK should strive to enchant those looking for a reason to click. Those who are but fish floating around, looking for inspiration, looking for a reason to be reeled in by the hook for a two-hour adventure that starts with an article you found off the main page and ends with a complete understanding of the 1902 Kosher Meat Boycott. This is, in my view, the danger of being adamant that hooks should trumpet the key accomplishment of a historical or contemporary figure—it kind of admits defeat. It assumes that users won't find a reason to click, and therefore tries to jam as much information to give to the reader without them clicking, without them ever wanting to click through. Insubstantial hooks are, of course, a problem of their own, but we should be careful about these extremes and strive for hooks that have both a reasonable amount of hookiness and interestingness. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, actually it was a common practice for a government agency, be it county, state or federal, to supply paper, ink etc, for a given printing commission, esp since it usually involved appreciable amounts of paper, which often times could be scarce. Private commissions could go either way, depending, but usually printers supplied the wherewithal in those cases, rather than having a private customer go out and procure those things. In such cases, the cost of materials was factored into the overall agreement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Leak, @Gwillhickers: - this is one of those topics where, if you're someone like me and fascinated by American history of that era, or even just an interest in newspaper history, it catches your eye. If not, maybe no hook will work. Maybe all DYK hooks are like that. One thing I did find interesting, is that when Childs and Swaine got the contract to publish the Laws of Congress, not only did the Government pay an agreed upon fee for the printing, but also provided the paper supply on which they would be printed. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron — Clearly this is a matter of opinion. Even the mention of printing laws isn't any guarantee it will appeal to a broad audience. I really don't think the founding of a newspaper, "in just one country", is something to be brushed off so readily. Founding a newspaper, the third in a country like the United States, at a time when the newspaper industry was in its infancy, is a distinguished accomplishment. Printing laws, though a big responsibility, was just a job and shouldn't be something that takes a front seat to Childs' accomplishment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Tweaks: queues 3 and 4
In the second hook of Queue 3, "... that without facial tattoos, Inuit traditional belief holds that women ..." seems very awkward to me. It would be much better as "... that Inuit traditional belief holds that women without facial tattoos ...".
In the third hook of Queue 4, "a set of guidelines were introduced" is grammatically incorrect. It should be "a set of guidelines was introduced". MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 21:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Done both of them. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Templates
@Theleekycauldron:, or anyone else ... about this comment in the edit summary. Can someone please point out in the guidelines where it says reviewers are also responsible for grading the article in a WikiProject template? Much appreciated. --evrik 03:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's in the length requirement, if I recall correctly—the article can't be a stub. It's not specifically on the reviewer to reassess—in fact, that should be on the nominator. I just meant that the article shouldn't be okay'd if it's still classified as a stub. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the nominator should do it, or ask someone else to. In most cases a true stub would probably be ineligible on grounds of length anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- But nothing in the reviewer instructions says the reviewer has to double check what the templates on the back say? Just checking. I was surprised to have been called out for not adjusting the templates. --evrik 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes actual stubs shouldn't be posted at DYK. But it's not the reviewers responsibility to change the WikiProject templates, as it's not in the reviewing instructions (and I don't support adding it either, as it would just make the instructions even more complex). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I always interpreted that requirement as meaning that it cannot actually be a stub (too short with no section structure) and that it cannot be tagged as a stub, with a stub tag, visible in the article itself. The talk page assessment is often far out of date and I don't think that's an issue for DYK. DYK is for readers, so it should be based on article content. Talk pages are for editors and the only purpose of their assessments is to guide editors, so their content is irrelevant for DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- no, it's totally not the reviewer's responsibility—I'm pretty used to making a lot of pre-promotion cleanup as promoter, and over a while, you just start to shoulder responsibility for that stuff. but it ain't really. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes actual stubs shouldn't be posted at DYK. But it's not the reviewers responsibility to change the WikiProject templates, as it's not in the reviewing instructions (and I don't support adding it either, as it would just make the instructions even more complex). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- But nothing in the reviewer instructions says the reviewer has to double check what the templates on the back say? Just checking. I was surprised to have been called out for not adjusting the templates. --evrik 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the nominator should do it, or ask someone else to. In most cases a true stub would probably be ineligible on grounds of length anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- The talk page project banners and their ratings, were designed as a system for the projects to eyeball for a work plan. They usually show up on the projects under "Tasks" or something similar. Each project, if they are active, have their own standards about what assessment rating applies to a given article. It is not DYK's responsibility. However, most projects are inactive. If a nomination otherwise meets DYK requirements, it's not a stub. Remove the stub rating if you see it. A true stub would not be complete enough for DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've also seen some articles that are too long to be stubs and yet still have a stub tag (usually they were kept in because editors forgot to remove them). Usually those need to be removed before review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- They're easy enough to miss, down below even the navigation templates. DYK does not run stubs, but whether an article is a stub is not determined by a template on the article or its talkpage, but by its actual content, and that is what is reviewed. CMD (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- To me, the whole stub issue is no big deal. DYK possibly first came up with the "not a stub' issue in reference to how developed an article is. If it can pass DYK, it's also more than a Stub. Nobody is likely to come along later and put the stub back. And if someone does put it back, DYK does not monitor past nominations. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- They're easy enough to miss, down below even the navigation templates. DYK does not run stubs, but whether an article is a stub is not determined by a template on the article or its talkpage, but by its actual content, and that is what is reviewed. CMD (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've also seen some articles that are too long to be stubs and yet still have a stub tag (usually they were kept in because editors forgot to remove them). Usually those need to be removed before review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Article nominators and other editors removing comments by others on a DYK nomination
Generally speaking, is it allowed for article nominators to remove comments made by a reviewer or commenter if they disagree with them, or is that not allowed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, it's antithetical to the entire decision making process. (except personal attacks/harassment/outing, of course) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Noted. For reference, the nomination being referred to is Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, where the nominator removed some comments I had made on the nomination. Should the comments be restored or should they be allowed to remain deleted? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that the comments were relevant (as they were asking the user to do a QPQ, and clarify the meaning of a word in the hook), they should definitely not have been removed. It comes as no surprise to me that the user in question is the one who's been filling up this talkpage with tonnes of QPQ discussion, instead of actually doing QPQs.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've re-added the comments, but honestly if the user won't do QPQs in a timely manner, we should probably be rejecting their nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- No comments were ' removed '. Narutolovehinata5 did not provide the diff, as the edit summary made it clear, that Off-topic comments were moved to the article talk page. See WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, WP:TPG for the rules. Venkat TL (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a talkpage, it's a template page. And the comments were asking you to do a QPQ, and asking for "greenhorn" to be made clearer- both of which are acceptable things to ask on a DYK nomination. Moving them to an article talkpage, when they are about the DYK nomination is wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- How were they off-topic? The comments have to do with the nomination. I think you probably should be taken to ANI by someone who is used to that thing. SL93 (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see that you updated the QPQ at the nomination with "Done, although Exempt", but you aren't exempt and your only QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown was for your Modi Years nomination. You need another one. SL93 (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am exempt as I do not "yet" have 5 DYK Credits. My second review is Template:Did you know nominations/Chibuzor Nwakanma Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's 5 nominations, not 5 DYK credits, as you very well know (as you've started multiple threads above to argue about this). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've now read all the threads above and I have to ask; for how much longer are we going to allow Venkat TL to be such a time sink at DYK? Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I can’t believe the user continues to be disruptive after previous warnings. Time for a topic ban. Schwede66 17:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let me follow up on the topic ban question; here's a process question. Is a topic ban something that we sort here on this talk page in an informal way, or do we need to be more formal and use (for example) an RfC process, or do we go to ANI for it? Schwede66 01:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: ANI was used for The C of E's case; I think the wider community should probably have their say. Neglecting that, an RfC here could also work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- From what I recall, propsals for editor topic restrictions generally need to be discussed in a wider venue such as ANI. When TRM was topic banned (and subsequently unbanned) from DYK, it was through ArbCom as part of his existing ArbCom restrictions. The C of E's topic bans (like his earlier partial ban and later his full ban from DYK) were discussed at ANI. A discussion that's only here might count as local consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- ANI would be the most logical place to request a topic ban, with the quickest result. In the TRM case, there were multiple issues over an extended period of time, and involved many editors. TRM had once been both an Admin and a Bureaucrat. It was a much different case than this one. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Hopefully without coming across as insensitive, are you planning on opening an ANI thread? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I shall draft something here and will ask for broader input before taking it across to ANI. Not today... Schwede66 00:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- From what I recall, propsals for editor topic restrictions generally need to be discussed in a wider venue such as ANI. When TRM was topic banned (and subsequently unbanned) from DYK, it was through ArbCom as part of his existing ArbCom restrictions. The C of E's topic bans (like his earlier partial ban and later his full ban from DYK) were discussed at ANI. A discussion that's only here might count as local consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: ANI was used for The C of E's case; I think the wider community should probably have their say. Neglecting that, an RfC here could also work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let me follow up on the topic ban question; here's a process question. Is a topic ban something that we sort here on this talk page in an informal way, or do we need to be more formal and use (for example) an RfC process, or do we go to ANI for it? Schwede66 01:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I can’t believe the user continues to be disruptive after previous warnings. Time for a topic ban. Schwede66 17:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've now read all the threads above and I have to ask; for how much longer are we going to allow Venkat TL to be such a time sink at DYK? Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's 5 nominations, not 5 DYK credits, as you very well know (as you've started multiple threads above to argue about this). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am exempt as I do not "yet" have 5 DYK Credits. My second review is Template:Did you know nominations/Chibuzor Nwakanma Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Noted. For reference, the nomination being referred to is Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, where the nominator removed some comments I had made on the nomination. Should the comments be restored or should they be allowed to remain deleted? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft ANI notice
I volunteered to draft an ANI notice for dealing with Venkat TL's behaviour. This is now done. I invite others to check this and make sure that it covers the relevant issues. Please suggest amendments or edit the text. Venkat TL, I suggest that you don't comment here (as this isn't your ANI yet) but that you keep your powder dry for the ANI discussion itself:
Start of draft
==User:Venkat TL and behaviour at DYK==
I'm a regular at DYK (Did you know...) and wondered why Venkat TL, as a relative DYK-newbie, is expressing such strong opinions on matters QPQ. That's the "quid-pro-quo" system that requires editors to review other DYK nominations, with there being an initial period of five freebies so that newbies can get some experience first. An RfC on the finer details closed in September 2021 and when an editor finally tried to reflect the consensus in the rules, why would Venkat TL show such a strong reaction to that? I looked into this and found the following nominations from them:
| Nomination date | Nomination title | Status |
| 16-Dec-21 | The Concept of Active Defence in China's Military Strategy | Rejected |
| 18-Dec-21 | Our Hindu Rashtra | Successful |
| 21-Dec-21 | Price of the Modi Years | Successful |
| 28-Dec-21 | To Kill a Democracy | Successful |
| 28-Dec-21 | 2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election | Successful |
| 11-Jan-22 | Bulli Bai case | Rejected |
| 15-Jan-22 | Tek Fog | Under review |
| 11-Feb-22 | 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka | Rejected |
| 24-Feb-22 | Stray cow | Successful |
| 23-Mar-22 | Mann ministry | Under review |
| 4-Apr-22 | Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house | Under review |
| 8-Apr-22 | Aakar Patel | Under review |
What the nominations have in common once a review starts is that there is a lengthy back-and-forth going on. To review this user's nominations appears to be "hard work". At the time I did the above analysis, Venkat TL had four successful nominations and five pending ones, but each nomination claimed for them to be "exempt" from QPQ, which I suggested was not a good look. I therefore gave the advice to "not attempt to WP:GAME this". I received a hostile response, which included allegations of "extreme bad faith arguments", that I was being "assisted by minions" who contributed to earlier discussions, and we were collectively being accused of "deliberate group blindness". Subsequent comments reiterated bad faith (1, 2, 3) and talked about "personal attacks" (4). Venkat TL's DYK activity spills out onto user talk pages, where he accused Narutolovehinata5 to edit DYK for their ego (twice at that), which was repeated at DYK talk. Theleekycauldron removed "His ego won, Misplaced Pages lost" from Narutolovehinata5's talk page as a personal attack but Venkat TL reverted that removal and reinstated the personal attack. This led to a discussion on Theleekycauldron's talk page.
Venkat TL then started an RfC to have rules clarified and that itself contained the allegation that their "DYKs have already been suffering because of bad quality of reviewing or hostile reviewers far more concerned about striking line-items on this page than improving Misplaced Pages." The RfC was closed on procedural grounds.
Several users have pondered whether Venkat TL should receive a topic ban at DYK, including David Eppstein "topic ban may be necessary", Joseph2302 "would support a topic ban", BusterD "I am seeing at least one uninvolved administrator who has suggested a DYK topic ban on Venkat TL. I'm leaning in that direction myself; Venkat TL seems to make lots of bad faith accusations against others on this page", Black Kite "I've now read all the threads above and I have to ask; for how much longer are we going to allow Venkat TL to be such a time sink at DYK?", and myself "Time for a topic ban".
Therefore, I ask the wider community to consider a DYK topic ban for Venkat TL for ongoing uncivil behaviour displayed in the context of DYK.
End of draft
Appreciate any feedback before I take it across to ANI. Schwede66 21:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think there should also be more emphasis on the "DYK closed without proper review" discussion as multiple assumptions of bad faith were made in that discussion (not just the one about ego). There should probably be also a mention of his "It appears there is a sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list" comment on the Hijab nomination. For what it's worth, it probably should also be noted that he has now started providing QPQs for his newer nominations, albeit only after much drama. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also forgot to mention how he removed my comments regarding QPQs and hook wording (i.e. the greenhorn thing) from the Mann ministry nomination for being "offtopic"; it may be worth noting that removing comments bh others from DYK discussions is apparently a no-no even if you disagree with them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Well, since you're shooting for a topic ban, WP:ANI advice recommends WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. But also, bearing in mind that I have little experience with ANI and have no desire to change that—I think this is well-written for what it attempts to do, but I also worry that ANI won't appreciate some of the messages here. Reading through the ANI advice, it suggests that the uninvolved participants don't like it when the plaintiff puts a spin on the diffs, or tries to prosecute a case. Neglecting that, this does lay out the relevant timeline well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, Theleekycauldron, don't go by the ANI Advice page. WP:AN
is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators
; WP:AN/Iis for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems
. Your problems with yon fella clearly falls into the latter (and yes, since you want as many non-DYK eyes on it as possible, that's where you find them, not the backwater of AN). I note that in any case he has forced your arm by filing there already. Any fans of native aboriginal weaponry should take a long cool drink and sit back and watch. HTH, SN54129 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- To clarify, Theleekycauldron, don't go by the ANI Advice page. WP:AN
Sourcing help
I need help at Template:Did you know nominations/Harold DeMarsh. Harold DeMarsh was the first NCAA wrestling champion due to his weight class competing first at the first NCAA wrestling championship and winning that. I can find brackets of the 1928 NCAA Wrestling Championships, but I can't find a source that specifically states that the 115-pound bracket competed first in 1928. SL93 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I contacted the Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum since they have exhibits on DeMarsh and the matches. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I solved it by throwing money at the problem...as in spending a few dollars on an ebook. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- and they say we don't sacrifice anything for this project. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I bought it so I might as well see if I can use it on other articles. The book has the history of collegiate wrestling in chronological order which might prove to be useful again. SL93 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I withdrew the nomination. SL93 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- and they say we don't sacrifice anything for this project. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
More queues needed
@DYK admins: There's a backlog at DYK with one queue ready to go. Since we are at two-sets-a-day, backlogs might be more likely for the next few days/weeks. Any help promoting preps would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Three filled queues at the moment, more will happen. However, I would like to applaud all our prep builders. Looking over the Approved list, building the preps is truly an art form. The prep builders are deserving of respect and admiration. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Quirky hooks
It seems... we're running a bit short at the moment on quirkies. I'll keep searching and sifting, but could someone please promote Paddy Morgan (nom) to the quirky slot of p5? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe ALT0 or ALT2 is quirky enough at Template:Did you know nominations/Phillips O'Brien? SL93 (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2 might work, but it's treating a quote as fact... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. Despite being a quote, the article makes it clear that is exactly what the author was trying to accomplish with his book. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean that is what the book literally is marketed as - "Phillips Payson O'Brien shows us the war in a completely different light. In this compelling new history..." SL93 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- how does that contribute re: revision of revisionists? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I got that hook mixed up with the original hook which I think is fine for the quirky slot with no or few choices. As for ALT2, I'm not sure if we have progressed from the celebrity peas hooks when we recently had a watching frogs playing poker one when the frogs were dead. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- how does that contribute re: revision of revisionists? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2 might work, but it's treating a quote as fact... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I promoted Paddy Morgan. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Is?
In Queue 7:
- ... that KLEF in Anchorage, Alaska, is one of just three remaining commercially operated classical-music radio stations in the United States?
Nominator: Sammi Brie, reviewer: GreatLakesShips, promoter: Z1720.
The main problem is the "is". The source is from 2013, and there should be a more recent source to verify that the hook is still true. Also, the source of the information is the station owner; I would prefer to see an independent source. Unless a more recent, independent source can be supplied, I'd suggest changing the hook to something like:
- ... that, according to its owner, KLEF in Anchorage, Alaska, was one of just three remaining commercially operated classical-music radio stations in the United States, as of 2013?
MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 00:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for this comment. I agree with Mandarax's concerns above and approve of their suggested change to the hook. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://playbill.com/article/where-to-listen-to-classical-music, dated Feb. 2022, lists seven US stations/groups of stations; however, all appear to be non-commercial. KLEF was not included. I am a bit worried that it's easy to miss the "commercially operated" part of the hook and think that there are only three classical stations altogether. You can make any subject appear unusual by adding enough qualifiers that describe it and don't describe its competitors. Why is being commercial relevant here? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @David Eppstein, there used to be many more commercial classical stations in the US, and these were quite famed in their day: WQXR-FM, KFAC, KKHI, etc. It is certainly unusual in US radio that one is operating—let alone in Alaska—let alone one started in the late 1980s, whereas the other two (WFMT and WRR (FM)) have been around far longer. I *do* support the proposed revisions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is "unusual" that this station is a commercial classical station, in the sense that it is commercial, is classical, and there are few other stations that have both combinations of characteristics. Your reply repeats this claim of unusuality, already implicit in the hook. But it does not answer my question. Why is this specific combination of characteristics an interesting one, rather than a misleading one that hides the fact that there are actually many more classical stations? I mean, if we had a hook stating that it was the only classical station whose original owner was named Rick, it would be clear that the name of the owner is only included to impart uniqueness, rather than actually being informative. Can you explain to me why "commercial" has a more important function in the hook than that? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The idea is that it's one of the last of a nearly extinct breed that was more common in US radio. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not really clear on what the point is, either. On the surface, this hook seems to be saying that there are ONLY 3 classical music stations in the entire country, and that is false. Are the many other classical stations in the US all public broadcasting/non-profit? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The idea is that it's one of the last of a nearly extinct breed that was more common in US radio. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is "unusual" that this station is a commercial classical station, in the sense that it is commercial, is classical, and there are few other stations that have both combinations of characteristics. Your reply repeats this claim of unusuality, already implicit in the hook. But it does not answer my question. Why is this specific combination of characteristics an interesting one, rather than a misleading one that hides the fact that there are actually many more classical stations? I mean, if we had a hook stating that it was the only classical station whose original owner was named Rick, it would be clear that the name of the owner is only included to impart uniqueness, rather than actually being informative. Can you explain to me why "commercial" has a more important function in the hook than that? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @David Eppstein, there used to be many more commercial classical stations in the US, and these were quite famed in their day: WQXR-FM, KFAC, KKHI, etc. It is certainly unusual in US radio that one is operating—let alone in Alaska—let alone one started in the late 1980s, whereas the other two (WFMT and WRR (FM)) have been around far longer. I *do* support the proposed revisions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://playbill.com/article/where-to-listen-to-classical-music, dated Feb. 2022, lists seven US stations/groups of stations; however, all appear to be non-commercial. KLEF was not included. I am a bit worried that it's easy to miss the "commercially operated" part of the hook and think that there are only three classical stations altogether. You can make any subject appear unusual by adding enough qualifiers that describe it and don't describe its competitors. Why is being commercial relevant here? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking as a person who has a relatively limited interest in radio, I did find it interesting that, commercial or not, there are that few classical music stations left in a country as large as the United States. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I think that, by misunderstanding the hook, this comment clearly demonstrates that the hook is misleading. It is not accurate that "there are that few classical music stations left". The actual number of classical stations is significantly higher, but most are non-commercial. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- They may have been responding to your post above about there being just seven of any kind. I don't see the modified hook as being the least bit misleading – it says exactly what the source does. We can't be responsible for users who misread things. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 19:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I think that, by misunderstanding the hook, this comment clearly demonstrates that the hook is misleading. It is not accurate that "there are that few classical music stations left". The actual number of classical stations is significantly higher, but most are non-commercial. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- What makes it unusual is that commercial classical music stations in the US generally don't survive; that's why most remaining ones are non-commercial. They don't survive because they often don't pull in sufficient advertising. That's not something non-commercial stations have to worry about. They're supported by a combination of donor funding and taxes. MeegsC (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
new tool in light of rule change
Since we changed our QPQ system from credits to nominations, I've (with the help of SD0001 for hosting) created a new nomination-counting tool at https://leekbot.toolforge.org. anyone have any objection to me swapping it into the {{DYK tools}} template? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- How are the 2 different- I've checked for my own username, and I get 261 nominations for both? Which definitely isn't correct, as in my early days, I had at least 1 rejected DYK nom. Leek/new one, old one Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- my tool returns 253 for you; are there any articles you wrote that someone else nominated? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- no, my tool is counting doubled nominations as one. hmm... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- My mistake on the numbers. Yes there may be a few that I didn't nominate but had credit for. But there will be also a few double/triple article nominations too. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- This might not matter, but it doesn't seem to pick up very old nominations, such as my 2006 nomination of Wyandotte Caves. Of course, back then nominations did not have subpages. See Old revision of this version of the template talk page. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 19:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- for what it's worth, the old tool wouldn't pick that up either; as far as I know, the template subpage system predates DYKUpdateBot, which is what the old tool relies on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- DYKUpdateBot began its reign in February 2010; DYK subpages first appeared about July 2011. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- and schwede66 made around 100 nominations in that timespan, leading to that bug... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- DYKUpdateBot began its reign in February 2010; DYK subpages first appeared about July 2011. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- What Joseph2302 links as the old one, is wierd. I ran the one he linked, and it kicked up a list of every DYK credit notice from me that went to any nominator when I promoted a given queue. The URL looks the same, but when I click on the link actually inside my most recent nomination template, it kicks out my own DYK credits, which it should. — Maile (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- for what it's worth, the old tool wouldn't pick that up either; as far as I know, the template subpage system predates DYKUpdateBot, which is what the old tool relies on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I just put my name in and got no results. Does that mean my next five noms are free? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- it's a slower tool for now, give it a couple seconds; I got 272 nompages. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just got an (edit conflict) in saying that yes, it showed up as 272. But, that's only 2011 through 2015. I'm over 500 now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- strange. I'll get into it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: ah, it returns 465 (through 2022 April 10) if you give it enough time. I really gotta implement a caching system, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't get any results, either. Maybe I have too many? It says, "PANTS: the Plaintext Automatic Nomination Tallying System Just a sec... :) no. timestamp revision id nomination page" — Maile (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting 109 for you; just give it time for now, I'm working on some optimizations. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting 129 for myself. According to my own records, that number should be 287. And yes, I have a number of multi-hook nominations, but the count shouldn't be that far out. Schwede66 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- oy va voy, looks like you made a hundred or so nominations before the template subpage system was implemented. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting 129 for myself. According to my own records, that number should be 287. And yes, I have a number of multi-hook nominations, but the count shouldn't be that far out. Schwede66 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting 109 for you; just give it time for now, I'm working on some optimizations. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't get any results, either. Maybe I have too many? It says, "PANTS: the Plaintext Automatic Nomination Tallying System Just a sec... :) no. timestamp revision id nomination page" — Maile (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: ah, it returns 465 (through 2022 April 10) if you give it enough time. I really gotta implement a caching system, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- strange. I'll get into it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just got an (edit conflict) in saying that yes, it showed up as 272. But, that's only 2011 through 2015. I'm over 500 now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- it's a slower tool for now, give it a couple seconds; I got 272 nompages. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, looks like the tool has outstanding problems in the areas of speed, multi-hook nominations, and early-nomination detection. I'll let you know when those problems are solved. Thanks for the feedback, all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like it may be broken for some users as my check shows a grand total of zero nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I see 96 nominations when I click your link. It just takes a few seconds to load. DanCherek (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can see it now. Strangely when I first loaded it up nothing appeared. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are still some bugs in the tool though. For example, the tool lists Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Ross (anarchist) as one of my nominations even though my only edit to the nomination was to fix a title move (given that DYK noms shouldn't be moved even if the bolded article is moved). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- yep, that one's on the page's to-do list. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I see 96 nominations when I click your link. It just takes a few seconds to load. DanCherek (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like it may be broken for some users as my check shows a grand total of zero nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've tested it on various names and sometimes after over twenty minutes it still shows no results. After repeated attempts, I've gotten most to work eventually.There's a bug specific to Apple devices. The problem is that Apple doesn't recognize certain date formats. On an Apple device (Mac, iPad, etc.), all PANTS timestamps appear as
NaN undefined NaN at NaN:NaN:NaN. I encountered the same issue when I wrote a script to assist with adding {{Unsigned}}. I solved the problem in my script by changing the parameter passed to the Date function from a Wikidate format such as09:31, October 25, 2021to a format that Apple accepts:October 25, 2021 09:31. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 01:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for the alert and thorough diagnosis, Mandarax! Walk me through this apple bug a bit; I don't take any date input from the user, and by the time I output it, it should be just a string—where in the code do I need to modify the date format so that Apple devices can work with it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the course of writing my script, I discovered that if you're doing something like
var ts= new Date(x);, many different formats can be used for x in Windows, such as "October 25, 2021 13:01", "Oct 25, 2021 13:01", or "Oct 25 2021 13:01". Also acceptable in Windows are "13:01 October 25, 2021" and "13:01 10-25-2021", but formats such as these two will produce an "Invalid Date" on an Apple device. I dunno how you're processing dates in PANTS, but I'm guessing that you're somehow using a similar date format. Misplaced Pages puts the time before the date in its timestamps. I think if you reverse that, it'll solve the problem. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 10:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the course of writing my script, I discovered that if you're doing something like
- Thanks for the alert and thorough diagnosis, Mandarax! Walk me through this apple bug a bit; I don't take any date input from the user, and by the time I output it, it should be just a string—where in the code do I need to modify the date format so that Apple devices can work with it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
How is this quirky?
I'm not sure how the hook at the end of prep 1 is quirky. ".. .that after Leonel Gómez Vides died in 2009, one of his friends expressed surprise that he had not been murdered?" That is assuming quirkiness is the reason for it being in the last slot. theleekycauldron SL93 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- it's not the best quirky; I think readers would find it odd (as I did) that one's friend expects them to be murdered... usually, you hope your friends will live long and healthy lives, and have no reason to believe otherwise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do remember when we tried to avoid anything slightly hinting at someone dying for the quirky slot, but things can change. I personally would have picked something about his career as a political activist for a hook, but that's just me. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: How about this one? I don't read Spanish, so I hope you got it correct. Drop down to the last sentence of the last paragraph to see where I got the info.
- ALT 1 - " ... that Salvadoran political activist Leonel Gómez Vides was suspected by political conservatives of being a communist, but the communists in El Salvador believed him to be an operative of the CIA?" — Maile (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Huh. I found that hook very quirky – in fact, when I was looking through hooks to build part of a set, I earmarked that (in my own mind) for the last spot! It made me click on the article to read more about him. As it turned out, somebody else grabbed that hook first. MeegsC (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I personally don't find hooks about someone dying to be quirky. But consensus is what Misplaced Pages goes by. SL93 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- i don't think death is quirky; it's structure and unexpectedness that makes quirk, not topic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of amusing, if it's being said at an entertainer's funeral, or something. But with politics, assassination risks are a reality and not funny (to me). I still hear echoes of the 1960's, and people around a TV set utteriing, "Somebody ought to shoot him ... ", as they watched (take your pick) John Kennedy or Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Governor George Wallace. Comments like that really happened, and still do. It isn't amusing to me. — Maile (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also think that the hook wasn't likely meant in a mean-spirited away due to the nature of the subject's work. I personally wouldn't want there to be a quirky hook for my death or even those that I care about. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it was meant in good-goofy humor. But it's one thing to joke among social acquaintances that someone's life or personality was such that it's a surprise he wasn't shot before he had a chance to die of a natural cause. In that regard, it's funny. I'm just not so sure how that same humor will be received on the main page. One way to find out, it to just leave the hook as the nominator intended, and let whatever happens happen.— Maile (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you about how the situations are different. I don't agree with the quirky slot. I'm also more keen on having a hook that celebrates the person's life. But I guess off to the main page to see what happens. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it was meant in good-goofy humor. But it's one thing to joke among social acquaintances that someone's life or personality was such that it's a surprise he wasn't shot before he had a chance to die of a natural cause. In that regard, it's funny. I'm just not so sure how that same humor will be received on the main page. One way to find out, it to just leave the hook as the nominator intended, and let whatever happens happen.— Maile (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also think that the hook wasn't likely meant in a mean-spirited away due to the nature of the subject's work. I personally wouldn't want there to be a quirky hook for my death or even those that I care about. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of amusing, if it's being said at an entertainer's funeral, or something. But with politics, assassination risks are a reality and not funny (to me). I still hear echoes of the 1960's, and people around a TV set utteriing, "Somebody ought to shoot him ... ", as they watched (take your pick) John Kennedy or Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Governor George Wallace. Comments like that really happened, and still do. It isn't amusing to me. — Maile (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- i don't think death is quirky; it's structure and unexpectedness that makes quirk, not topic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I personally don't find hooks about someone dying to be quirky. But consensus is what Misplaced Pages goes by. SL93 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: How about this one? I don't read Spanish, so I hope you got it correct. Drop down to the last sentence of the last paragraph to see where I got the info.
Easter and Good Friday
I have a modest proposal for Easter, Template:Did you know nominations/Ihr Christen, singet hocherfreut, needs a review first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm on it right now. — Maile (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Done This has been reviewed, if anyone would like to promote it to either Prep 7 or prep 1, both of which have one slot open. — Maile (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I promoted this to Prep 7. I felt Prep 7 was better because it will be on the main page during the morning in Germany, and Easter is traditionally celebrated in the morning in many Christian denominations. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, both. - Once we are together: a hook for tomorrow, Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfram Menschick, says "will be performed". Will be performed in the liturgy beginning 3 pm. It's in the second set for the day, which - during the Main page time - will get wrong when performed and afterwards. Should we 1) not care, 2) change each time, 3) find a different wording, 4) move it to the first set, where it could be swapped with Nabucco? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly an admin needed for tomorrow, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I promoted this to Prep 7. I felt Prep 7 was better because it will be on the main page during the morning in Germany, and Easter is traditionally celebrated in the morning in many Christian denominations. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Menschick
The hook for Good Friday, Wolfram Menschick, is on the Main page, but User:Fram removed the hook fact and its references from the article, twice. (See article history and my talk.) - I'm going out. - The hook is wrong by now as explained above, because the performance is over. We could say that he composed Marian vespers for women's choir, congregation and organ for the visit of Pope Benedikt XVI in Altötting in 2007, which is more sensational, but normal vespers would not be performed on Good Friday, so it would be ignorant to say so today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I restored the work to his works, so a hook could say he composed it, a work for the liturgy, for modest means, practical. A performance years after his death and at a Cathedral tells much more about his stature but I have no time to fight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It went off the Main page, and nobody seems to have problems. That was the strangest thing happening to me in almost 13 years of DYK. I hope it will not happen again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt and Theleekycauldron:
- WP:DYKNOT "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes."
- Original hook: ... that the Johannespassion by Wolfram Menschick (pictured), a setting of the Passion after St John for three soloists and choir, is performed today, including at the Essen Cathedral? Source:
- Changed by Leek on April 8: "that the Johannespassion by Wolfram Menschick, a setting of the Passion after St John for three soloists and choir, will be performed today at the Essen Cathedral?"
- At that point, it became an advertisement for the performance, listing the venue where it would be performed. Perhaps Leek was acting on good faith as a request from you? I don't know, and I assume good faith for both of you. Maybe one of us should have caught it before it was on the main page, but we didn't. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Advertisement? For a church service, free for all? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Gerda. All churches advertise, even just their regular services. All non-profit for-free events advertise. but it's still promotional. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Maile66: While I don't think the hook is extraordinary (see Green Line Extension (nom)), I think you're right that this was hook steps over the line of what DYK should be. (By the way, I just copyedited for punchiness; I'm not sure why that changed it from not-ad to ad, but I digress.) I didn't adequately consider the promotional nature of the hook, and I'm sorry for that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think maybe we are not conditioned to think of mentions of church programs as promotional, so I guess that skipped all of our brains. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- When I say Happy Easter, is that promotional? It went on the Main page at 2pm local time, and began 3pm. How many readers of the English Misplaced Pages do you think would feel "promoted" to attend? Happy Easter! On the Main page now an invitation to sing with "high gladness" ("hocherfreut", no good translation found yet). Is that promotional? In a way I'd hope it's infectious. It promotes not to remain fixed to an empty tomb. Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think maybe we are not conditioned to think of mentions of church programs as promotional, so I guess that skipped all of our brains. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Maile66: While I don't think the hook is extraordinary (see Green Line Extension (nom)), I think you're right that this was hook steps over the line of what DYK should be. (By the way, I just copyedited for punchiness; I'm not sure why that changed it from not-ad to ad, but I digress.) I didn't adequately consider the promotional nature of the hook, and I'm sorry for that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda, I understand your feelings are hurt about this. It's apparent your faith (and good will) are very important to you. The readership is unknown and unimportant. Let me give you a non-religious scenario. " ... that "Imagine" was the best-selling single of John Lennon's solo career?" is an historical fact, and not promotional. But it becomes promotional if the hook says, " ... that John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono has arranged a free concert in Central Park today to celebrate "Imagine"? With that wording, it is promoting the specific location of a free concert. — Maile (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Gerda. All churches advertise, even just their regular services. All non-profit for-free events advertise. but it's still promotional. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- At that point, it became an advertisement for the performance, listing the venue where it would be performed. Perhaps Leek was acting on good faith as a request from you? I don't know, and I assume good faith for both of you. Maybe one of us should have caught it before it was on the main page, but we didn't. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Special occasion request for April 23 or May 15
I submitted Template:Did you know nominations/W. A. Hewitt which has a special occasion request for April 23 or May 15. Either date is fine. Thanks for consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Special occasion DYK for Easter
Late notice, I know, but I just wrote Template:Did you know nominations/Easter in Poland. Might be a good hook for this weekend or so. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like you rushed to get the nomination done, and just added the most generic hook possible. Please supply a better hook. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suggested three alts, though I encourage others to suggest better hooks. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I like ALT4, ALT5 and ALT5a. I have not validated any of the hooks -- but, they meet the interestingness criteria for DYK. Ktin (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hooks 0 to 2 are approved and could go to tomorrow's set, second (Queue 1) preferred because the first has already something for Easter. I'd swap the Goldberg Variations to later, as we just had a ballet yesterday. It needs an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- sorry, hang on, don't promote this yet. ALT0 is
did you know that there are many customs and traditions related to Easter in Poland?
Yes, yes I did know that. That was the only hook proposed by the nominator two days ago for something that's happening tomorrow?? Yes, Z1720 proposed better hooks, and I proposed more, but I personally don't think ALTs 1 and 2 are up to snuff either—lots of holidays are important, and Americans aren't exactly going to be wowed by the fact that Polish Easter also does baskets and egg decorating. ALTs 4, 5, and 5a might well have their own problems, but that's the point—this needs more discussion for a consensus to develop. - This nomination was rushed and haphazard, and I strongly object to it bypassing the normal prep set process. WP:DYK#Date requests says that requests
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
, and this is a prime example of why. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- sorry, hang on, don't promote this yet. ALT0 is
- Hooks 0 to 2 are approved and could go to tomorrow's set, second (Queue 1) preferred because the first has already something for Easter. I'd swap the Goldberg Variations to later, as we just had a ballet yesterday. It needs an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I like ALT4, ALT5 and ALT5a. I have not validated any of the hooks -- but, they meet the interestingness criteria for DYK. Ktin (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suggested three alts, though I encourage others to suggest better hooks. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Promoting nominations with un-discussed hook changes?
This has been mentioned before, but the problem is now becoming more widespread. Some promoters choose to promote nominations with their own un-discussed hook changes, when the creator, nominator and reviewer have not been alerted.
Not everybody can consult their watchlist daily (some of us have to earn our living too). I consult mine daily, but this situation means that I now also have to check every promoted nomination that I've been involved in, on the day of promotion, then I have to check it on the preps and queues page daily until it appears on the main page. Not everyone has time for this, and not everyone realises that it is necessary. The creator is usually the best witness for accuracy of hook facts, but I doubt whether they are always automatically pinged when un-discussed changes are made to the hook.
This has happened to me as creator and as reviewer a number of times now. So far the changes have been mostly acceptable, but on one occasion I had to intervene because the hook-change made the facts incorrect, and therefore left the hook unsupported by citations. So please could we now have some kind of protocol in which creator, nominator and reviewer are always notified as soon as an un-discussed hook change has been made at the moment of promotion?
I'm not just talking about obvious fact-changes. Sometimes a re-phrasing for better syntax might seem OK, but in fact the wording has changed the meaning, and the promoter does not realise that. In my opinion, this should not happen at all at the moment of promotion, other than clear wikifying changes, such as inserting "pictured". So perhaps it should be made clear to promoters when it is better to hold up a promotion for approval of a changed hook, and when it is better to promote it e.g. when the promoter has only made a typo correction. Your opinions, please? Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talk • contribs) 19:44, April 15, 2022 (UTC)
- You are talking about only the promotion to prep process, to the point that a promoter changes the wording at that time? I do know that we admins sometimes correct hooks while they are in queue. But just to change something around because the promoting editor feels they can make it a better, or more accurate hook, I don't think I've done that part. I don't normally promote to prep. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- To my experience, theleekycauldron changes a lot, but notifies in the edit summary, - I like that solution. Most changes are fine, a few get discussions. Did you see the problem above, that the hook stayed, but the article was modified, removing the hook fact (which I only happened to see on my watchlist)? That seemed worse to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did a lot of promoting today, including rewording the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/European Theatre Convention when I promoted it to Prep 3. I left a message in the DYK promotion template, describing which Prep it has been moved to, that changes had been made and why I made those changes. I did not post my rewording in the DYK template because it is my understanding that when someone proposes an ALT, they are highly discouraged from promoting that hook. Since there are limited prep builders, this delays the hook's promotion and reduces my options for building sets. This is coupled with waiting for replies from the two editors about the new ALT, further delaying the process and making it difficult to build preps. If I think I am changing the meaning of the hook in any way, I will propose an ALT and not promote. In the future, I will ping all editors involved in the process if I make any changes to a hook as I promote it. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think one of the problems is that hook changes at the point of promotion are frequently notified only in edit summaries, and what we need is direct notification - it is too easy to miss an edit summary if one has a lot of items on the watchlist. I appreciate that there are lots of innocent and well-meaning promoters out there - you don't need to defend your actions, I am not looking to witch-hunt - I am just looking for ideas for general guidelines which will prevent creators, nominators and reviewers from missing those changes which inadvertently change hook facts and/or diverge from citation content. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't clear: in edit summary with a ping which will call your attention --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Storye book: I have a bot that can detect changes in hooks and record them on the nomination talk page—I haven't started an RfC to get it online, but is that something you'd be interested in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, leek. I look forward to seeing that, because at the moment, even when I spot a promotion-hook-change in an edit summary, it is a tedious matter to find the prep or queue that it's now in. Storye book (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think one of the problems is that hook changes at the point of promotion are frequently notified only in edit summaries, and what we need is direct notification - it is too easy to miss an edit summary if one has a lot of items on the watchlist. I appreciate that there are lots of innocent and well-meaning promoters out there - you don't need to defend your actions, I am not looking to witch-hunt - I am just looking for ideas for general guidelines which will prevent creators, nominators and reviewers from missing those changes which inadvertently change hook facts and/or diverge from citation content. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did a lot of promoting today, including rewording the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/European Theatre Convention when I promoted it to Prep 3. I left a message in the DYK promotion template, describing which Prep it has been moved to, that changes had been made and why I made those changes. I did not post my rewording in the DYK template because it is my understanding that when someone proposes an ALT, they are highly discouraged from promoting that hook. Since there are limited prep builders, this delays the hook's promotion and reduces my options for building sets. This is coupled with waiting for replies from the two editors about the new ALT, further delaying the process and making it difficult to build preps. If I think I am changing the meaning of the hook in any way, I will propose an ALT and not promote. In the future, I will ping all editors involved in the process if I make any changes to a hook as I promote it. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- To my experience, theleekycauldron changes a lot, but notifies in the edit summary, - I like that solution. Most changes are fine, a few get discussions. Did you see the problem above, that the hook stayed, but the article was modified, removing the hook fact (which I only happened to see on my watchlist)? That seemed worse to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Post-promotion hook change recording bot
 |
|
Should DYK employ an automated system that records changes made to hooks in the prep sets and on the main page? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Executive summary: It's my understanding that the consensus needed to go to WP:BRFA requires an RfC; if I'm wrong, feel free to remove the RfC tag. This bot would detect changes to any hook in the prep sets, queues, or on the Main Page. When the bot detects a change, it'll leave a note on the talk page of a nomination; for example, for C. J. Cregg (nom), changes will be recorded at Template talk:Did you know nominations/C. J. Cregg. The bot will not (as of now) detect changes made during promotion. Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable, so if you want to know when your hook's being modified, you would have to keep the nomination page on your watchlist until after the hook is taken off the air. Thoughts on implementation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I think this is an excellent idea. Those of us who work the preps and queues have a tendency to assume it's our job to tweak the hooks we promote, or even just peruse. But that leaves both the nominator and the reviewer with no consultation on whether or not the change was justified. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Maile Rlink2 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Can't think of any significant downsides. DanCherek (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Addendum: I specifically like the fact that this proposal will not be bothersome to nominators who do not want excessive pings or talk page messages. DanCherek (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support This has been an issue for me many times. Antony–22 (⁄contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support but I don't think being reliant on the Template talk thing is the best way to inform editors about hook changes. Many editors don't bother putting the nom page on their watchlist or otherwise don't check it, so it can be easy to miss changes. At the very least, if such changes are to be done, I think they should also either ping the relevant editor(s) or leave them a talk page message. As for relevant editor(s), given the "Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable" part, at the very least I think the nominator should be informed by the bot about any hook changes; if other editors (like co-noms) should be contacted, that should be left to the discretion of this RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like a no-brainer. NLH5's proposal immediately above of pinging the nom also seems like a good idea, and I assume it's feasible on the technical end, but my support isn't contingent on its implementation. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm unclear why placing comments on the nomination's talk page would bring nominators coming; if they don't currently come to check on their nomination when promoted to prep, and monitor thereafter, it seems unlikely that they'll track the nomination (talk) page post-promotion. Wouldn't it be more effective to post a note to the nominator's talk page? The nominator can easily be parsed from the nomination page. (For that matter, the other people on the nomination line could also be parsed.) I can see that other participants on the nominations page could be problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I mean, say you're a nominator, and compare the two scenarios. Currently, you get a watchlist notice that your hook was promoted; depending on the promoter, there won't be a link to the prep set, so you've gotta find the prep set, check on your hook, and (since it's probably been like three weeks since you made the nomination) cross-reference with the original only to find about half the time that no changes were made right then. Then there's the possibility that someone actually modifies it afterward, but by then you're already not paying any more attention until the hook goes live. By contrast, by leaving a record of the changes made on the nomination talk page says unambiguously that a change has been made, and lists what it is. I think that encourages nominators to pay attention by leaving it in a clearly accessible place without the pretense of whether it's even been modified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, you've lost me. The one thing I always see is a notification on my own talk page. (My Watchlist is quite long, and it's easy to miss things.) Why wouldn't it be preferable/more useful to have the bot post a note to the nominator's personal talk page informing them that their hook has been changed in Prep X (or Queue Y or the main page) from "... that ABC?" to "... that not ABD?", rather than put that information on the nomination template's talk page where I'm much less likely to notice on my watchlist that an edit has occurred? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: you really want a talk page message every time Ravenpuff puts in an {{nbsp}}? I think that's going to get excessive... I can have an opt-in list for both pings and talk page messages, but I'm hesitant to make it the default. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, you've lost me. The one thing I always see is a notification on my own talk page. (My Watchlist is quite long, and it's easy to miss things.) Why wouldn't it be preferable/more useful to have the bot post a note to the nominator's personal talk page informing them that their hook has been changed in Prep X (or Queue Y or the main page) from "... that ABC?" to "... that not ABD?", rather than put that information on the nomination template's talk page where I'm much less likely to notice on my watchlist that an edit has occurred? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I mean, say you're a nominator, and compare the two scenarios. Currently, you get a watchlist notice that your hook was promoted; depending on the promoter, there won't be a link to the prep set, so you've gotta find the prep set, check on your hook, and (since it's probably been like three weeks since you made the nomination) cross-reference with the original only to find about half the time that no changes were made right then. Then there's the possibility that someone actually modifies it afterward, but by then you're already not paying any more attention until the hook goes live. By contrast, by leaving a record of the changes made on the nomination talk page says unambiguously that a change has been made, and lists what it is. I think that encourages nominators to pay attention by leaving it in a clearly accessible place without the pretense of whether it's even been modified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- If anything, I'd probably prefer it to be opt-out since I've seen multiple editors in the past complaining about hooks being edited beyond their wishes, and in these cases the editors have even tended to be editors who aren't DYK core regulars. In such cases, if they were opt-in rather than opt-out, it could be easy for them to miss any pings especially if they didn't put the nomination on their watchlist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it's that form of Ravenpuff edit, theleekycauldron, then I didn't format my hook properly to begin with, so yes, I'd want to know. Even though I'm the sort to monitor nominations until they hit the main page. I also think that an opt-out is preferable to an opt-in; if people don't want to know about changes, an opt-out in the message would let them stop it after that message (or, of course, they could block the bot from posting to their talk page), but at least then they'll have themselves to blame if a hook change is made that they don't want. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- If anything, I'd probably prefer it to be opt-out since I've seen multiple editors in the past complaining about hooks being edited beyond their wishes, and in these cases the editors have even tended to be editors who aren't DYK core regulars. In such cases, if they were opt-in rather than opt-out, it could be easy for them to miss any pings especially if they didn't put the nomination on their watchlist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Thanks for this work Theleekycauldron Qn -- how easy is it to modify your bot to post the comment at the nomination page and then also post a message at the nominator's talk page telling them that their attention might be required on the nomination. Support this one, btw. Ktin (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. In my view, the nom talk page is exactly the right location for the bot to leave a note. Anybody who is involved has the chance to (at least temporarily) put that onto their watchlist. This is by no means foolproof (e.g. when a watchlist is not being monitored regularly) but it strikes the right balance between the current situation (which is hit and miss) and bothering involved parties unnecessarily (e.g. through pings) as it gives editors the chance to determine whether they want to be notified (through watchlisting). Schwede66 06:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Support. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support We've had a number of complaints over time about undiscussed/stealthy hook changes. I think perhaps the talk page of the article(s) bolded in the hook would be better than just the nom, though? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I only see article changes, if I have it watched and manually check my watchlist. Is there a different way? But with a talk page notification, since Preferences gives us no choice in this, in that as soon as something shows up on our talk page, we get that glaring notice at the top of our page. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable,
sounds like a talkpage notification might be too difficult. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- One possibility could be to merely ping nominators rather than "detecting interested parties". The ping being limited to the nominator probably shouldn't be too difficult to code. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I only see article changes, if I have it watched and manually check my watchlist. Is there a different way? But with a talk page notification, since Preferences gives us no choice in this, in that as soon as something shows up on our talk page, we get that glaring notice at the top of our page. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Last filled queue will be on main page in a few hours
Per title. @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I promoted two more to queue. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 4. We currently have a total of 224 nominations, of which only 70 have been approved, a gap of 154, up 6 over the past seven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
More than two months old
More than one month old
- March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Wings over Kabul: The First Airlift
- March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Thomas (politician)
- March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/German Tarok
Other nominations
- March 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Han Nyein Oo
- March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Hacı Lokman Birlik
- March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/The Case of the Animals versus Man
- March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry
- March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Malyuk
- March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Hitler teapot
- March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Geko (rapper)
- March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Whistleblower Aid
- March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Douglas Indian Village
- March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Hydroelectricity in Turkey
- March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Orray Ticknor
- March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Edith Prentiss
- March 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Church of All Saints, Houghton Regis
- March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Magazine (two articles)
March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Zippyshare- March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Jaqueline Kennedy’s 1962 goodwill tour of India and Pakistan
- March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Dove sono
- March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Ihsan Gürz
- March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/1977 World Snooker Championship
- April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Hussain
- April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Frederick
- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Klaus Wallrath
- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Judy Ann Santos
- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house
- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zionism as settler colonialism
- April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Andrea Pető
- April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. support for Saudi-led operations in Yemen
- April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Mansiya V.P.
- April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Carrie Jenkins Harris (American writer and editor) (two articles)
- April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Iain Maxwell Stewart
- April 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Minye Kyawswa I of Ava
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) 05:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Queue 4 typo, formatting
The lead hook of Queue 4 has a typo: movel should be novel. Also, the ? should be replaced with {{-?}}. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 09:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Shining Spark (nom)
we're really low on quirkies; could someone put ALT0a in a quirky slot somewhere? thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
We're below 60!
Readout shows 56; too tired to check for spec occs right now, and in any case, nothing can be done for another 12 hours until the new day UTC. I'm goin to sleep. Thanks to all the admins and prep set builders who kept DYK running! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only special occasion hook in queues and preps that I saw is in the next set to be promoted (at midnight), so it will run on April 18 as planned, just for 24 hours rather than 12. There is an unpromoted April 24 special occasion hook that will need to be promoted into an already filled Prep 1, displacing one of the hooks there. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)