This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 175

←

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

→

Archive 185

Template:Did you know nominations/London Boy (Taylor Swift song)

Ippantekina BuySomeApples

• ... that the Taylor Swift song " London Boy" features a spoken-word intro by English actor Idris Elba?

The source says not that it's an intro by Elba but that the intro includes a sampled bit from a 2017 talk show appearance? Any objection to changing this to

• ... that the intro to the Taylor Swift song " London Boy" features a spoken-word cameo by English actor Idris Elba? —valereee ( talk) 10:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That source says "The unmistakable voice of Idris Elba opens her track 'London Boy.' 'We can go driving in, on my scooter. Uh, you know, just riding in London,' the actor says at the start of the bop." I think that's pretty close to the hook without splitting hairs. I don't have any objections to changing the hook if you prefer though. BuySomeApples ( talk) 01:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Black-and-red broadbill

AryKun Desertarun

• ... that the black-and-red broadbill lays eggs in three color morphs?

The word morphs doesn't appear in the article...I'm thinking if we're using it in the hook, it probably should? —valereee ( talk) 11:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. AryKun ( talk) 11:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Geoffrey Guy hook (and also Q6)

valereee, can you please fix the formatting here? The apostrophe-s are supposed to be in regular font, not bold font—the bold is only supposed to include the link itself, not any punctuation or possessive that follows. Thanks.

Actually, if you (or any other admin) could please take a look at Queue 6 before it's promoted in seven hours and see what you could do, that would be great. The last five hooks have two pairs of bios, plus the only non-bio hook is U.S., as is the bio that follows it. Since the set has five bios, you'd probably need to swap out one of the bios with another set ( Queue 7 and Queue 1 both have three bios, so they could be involved in the swap. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the apostrophe, may not have time to do swaps, dinner party tonight and a timer's going off —valereee ( talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My family calls that "Mom's about to go on a killing spree." —valereee ( talk) 18:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you please swap out one of either Louis Hempelmann or Donald Mastick? It's a little odd to have two hooks about dangerous radiation in the same set. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 19:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I've swapped Donald Mastick (was Q6) with Maki Kaji (was Q1). Schwede 66 20:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Schwede66, but I should have been more specific. BlueMoonset had requested that a bio be swapped for a non-bio. My request, which you fulfilled, was for which bio to swap out. A bio should still be swapped out. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 21:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No problems. Please be even more specific and recommend which hooks to swap and I'll do it. Schwede 66 21:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

(Sorry I wasn't around immediately.) Well, let's see.... Q6 only has two US hooks. How about swapping Hermann Boeschenstein from Queue 6 with the US-ish American supply in the Siegfried Line campaign from Queue 1? MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 22:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Schwede 66 23:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• ... that Ng Yu Zhi is accused of running the largest investment fraud in the history of Singapore?

@ Kingoflettuce, Juxlos, and Capsulecap: I think this hook fall foul of our BLP rules. Instead of concentrating on the alleged fraud, for which he has yet to be convicted, we could have a factual hook on the level of his bail or the seizure of his goods, as long as the sourcing is good enough. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

But he had to post bail / had his goods seized because...... He was accused of running the largest investment fraud in the history of Singapore?? Kingoflettuce ( talk) 06:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

He’s accused only. Prior to a conviction, that hook is not ok. Schwede 66 07:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to Cwm's suggestion that "we could have a factual hook on the level of his bail or the seizure of his goods, as long as the sourcing is good enough" -- but don't we have to state what the basis of the bail/goods seizure was? Which means we'd have to circle back to the accusation anyhow. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 07:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How about ALT1 (adding the equivalent in US dollars)? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that bail for Ng Yu Zhi has been raised to S$4 million?

That still seems to be a case of "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals" to me... Posting bail may be a factual matter, but it's still not something most of us would want to happen! Given that the article seems to be more than 50% about his fraud allegations and arrest, I wonder if this is one of those rare cases where a neutral and BLP-compliant DYK hook simply isn't possible.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 08:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that Ng Yu Zhi has been described as an "increasingly visible figure in Singapore's philanthropic community"?

That should work, right. Albeit ironic... Kingoflettuce ( talk) 08:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3: that Ng Yu Zhi owned the only Pagani Huayra in Singapore? Kingoflettuce ( talk) 08:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

ALTs 2 & 3 ought to be BLP-compliant, no? Kingoflettuce ( talk) 08:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, those seem better. Maybe ALT3 would be the best. ALT2 is accurate, but slightly misleading given that the quote dated to before his arrest... and yes, he is now "visible" alright, but it's not so much his philanthropy that's under discussion!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Lean ALT3, or alternatively the hook can be postponed until a conviction is given. Unless the Singaporean legal system takes, say, 4 years to convict him or something. Juxlos ( talk) 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3 looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

not reporting any problems, i'm just a bit proud of myself theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 03:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Whoo hoo! Great job @ Theleekycauldron:. BuySomeApples ( talk) 04:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice work! But... forgive me if I'm wrong, this isn't an area do stuff in, aren't you supposed to leave some empty in case we need a swap or something like that? Pamzeis ( talk) 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Pamzeis: mmmm, yeah, i probably should have figured that that was a thing when I started working out of my own user page. I'll leave two blank from now on—at least it's easier that way. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 06:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if this turns up any problems, User:Theleekycauldron/P8 is open for use until we promote a couple of sets. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, theleekycauldron. Well done! While holding open an empty slot or two isn't a bad idea, since every once in a while a special occasion hook urgently needs to be slotted in and the only alternative is to temporarily unpromote a nomination to make room, things can usually wait until the next prep is promoted to queue. Nature abhors a vacuum, and even if you were to leave a slot or two open, someone else is likely to come along and fill it. I wouldn't advise using a non-DYK space to hold hooks, even temporarily. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Prep 1 is now available. Good job, Theleekycauldron. And while I'm here, that Dancing Pall Bearers in Surinam is one very cool lead hook and image. — Maile ( talk) 15:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought they were fencers at low-res, but once I saw what it was it was super cool, i love that one theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 16:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and fair enough! I'll leave some empty slots from now on—I didn't formally promote any of the hooks I kept in P8, i just stored copies of the hooks there, and when the prep set opened (before Pamzeis's comment) I pasted them all in and then formally closed the nominations. Really just a reminder to me, more than anything. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 16:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Good job, Theleekycauldron. And I agree that the dancing pall bearers is a stunner of a lead hook. Schwede 66 16:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The current preps seem to have a slight bias towards towers/New York/epicgenius (four of seven picture hooks). — Kusma ( talk) 16:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Kusma: yeah, we'll swap those around when we get more room and more available—they were really the only U.S. hooks available to me to promote most of the time. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 16:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Theleekycauldron, good job! FWIW, it's better to use the image hooks in non-image slots if there are too many too-similar image slots. Buildings are very easy to get pictures of, but that doesn't mean we should use lots of images of buildings. Four out of five in a row is probably five times as many as would be ideal. Some of those need to be swapped into non-image slots and replaced with image hooks that aren't of buildings. Since you've done a lot of prep-building lately, are there any image hooks you placed into non-image slots in queue or prep right now? We're in particular a little short on bios for image slots? —valereee ( talk) 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Valereee: Fablehaven in P5 is going to be your only prep set U.S. option (the buildings are the only U.S. hook in some of these sets, there really wasn't any other choice), but it's just a book cover. If you can reach into the queues, take William McAndrew from Q4 and Julie Hayden from Q1—Wish I could be more of a help, but I don't have admin access and I'm exhausted from pulling an all-nighter. Try to preserve the U.S. balance, it really does get thin in the later sets. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Theleekycauldron, if we're that low on US hooks, don't worry about it. The reason we generally use so many US hooks is because we have so many, not because we particularly want to use US hooks. In an ideal world no prep would have more than one US hook. —valereee ( talk) 18:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't pull Julie Hayden, it's my hook, but I would dearly love to see that get an image slot as it's a Black woman, which is unusual. I can pull William McAndrew. —valereee ( talk) 18:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Valereee: oh, damn, Hayden does deserve an image slot. @ Cwmhiraeth and Amakuru: could one of you please swap the hook? I'm sorry to bug you, but it is mildly time-sensitive. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As in add Julie Hayden (teacher) as an image hook instead of one of the building slots in the lower prep sets. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, @ Ravenpuff: if you could do so, that would be quite helpful. Thanks so much theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Theleekycauldron: I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I'm not actually an admin! That's why I've only ever edited prep sets. —  RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry about that! I thought you had promoted a few of the prep sets I built. Am I thinking of Mandarax? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

nope, they're not an admin either. hmm theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

okay, i need to calm down a bit. I'm a little hyperactive trying to fix this. It's okay, we have another five hours before Hayden hits the queue, someone will swap it out. deep breaths, leek theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TLC, don't worry about Hayden, nothing here is important enough for you to worry about it! —valereee ( talk) 19:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

thanks—it's one of the more unexpected things i've learned today, yeah :) theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 19:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done @ Theleekycauldron and Valereee: I have moved Julie Hayden to prep 4 and brought in the building hook from there, which I believe was what was requested here. Sorry, I haven't yet swapped the prep 4 image itself as it's late and I'm on my phone, but hopefully you can do that, and that task isn't urgent. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers  —  Amakuru ( talk) 23:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Amakuru! I already swapped in the image :) theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Valereee: this is true—most of the prep sets on the bottom only have one U.S. hook. I'll clear up the rest of this on the message you left on my talk page. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

TLC, I didn't do William McAndrew, I felt like that was an exceptionally poor image, so I did Megan Phelps-Roper instead. —valereee ( talk) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Valereee: works for me! theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have read the older nominations and some of them are stalled. It is a time sync for experienced editors to push these over the line, the nominator is often disenchanted at being told what to do and disappears for weeks at end.

A solution to this problem would be to add a new category for the result of a nomination. Instead of accept or reject we should have some of these marked "pending". These pending nominations are closed but can be brought back at any time in the next 6 months.

Some of the older reviews are combative and I think we should allow nominees the opportunity to detach from old reviews and reviewers completely. In some cases I can't see a problem with older reviews and we're just waiting for someone not to care about being right. If we mark these as pending when they come back they get a fresh look from different editors without all the history.

I think if there is any interest in this then it'd probably need a lot of work, a RFC, etc. I'm just seeing if this has any traction. Desertarun ( talk) 11:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Six months seems like quite a long time. Perhaps reduce the time a nomination can be "pending" as six months + review and promoting time doesn't really make an article new... Pamzeis ( talk) 13:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say no. The purpose if DYK is to promote new articles and articles that have been recently expanded/reached GA. Letting things hang around for six months is too long- if the nominator goes away from Wikipedia, then that's tough luck in my view. We also shouldn't be starting new reviews or re-nominating articles- unless they actually meet one of the DYK criteria for inclusion at the time of 2nd nomination. This would just add complexity to DYK (something that people seems to love doing, but we should really try making the process simpler not more confusing), and don't see there is a huge benefit to it. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The process we have for stalled nominations is something like this;

• 1) Nomination is made
• 2) Review has lots of problems
• 3) Nominator abandons or turns up one a month
• 4) Experienced DYKers come along and try to fix things unsuccessfully
• 5) The nomination is offered up for adoption
• 6) The nomination scrapes over the line or is rejected

So at what point could the process be improved and how? (1-6) Desertarun ( talk) 14:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see that there is any problem which needs to be solved. The nomination is rejected and closed if abandoned, unless there is a consensus to continue. This is a normal process across all of Wikipedia. Flibirigit ( talk) 15:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and we shouldn't be waiting a month everytime to see if the user comes back to make changes or not, we should be rejecting after e.g. a week of no responses. Most issues with an article should be fixed before nominating for DYK. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel there is room for improvement in making new nominators feel welcomed and to understand the DYK process, but the onus is still on the nominator to ensure success of the nomination. Flibirigit ( talk) 16:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it also depends upon the circumstances of the abandonment. Sometimes, editors just simply disappear, and while unfortunate, there's really not much we can do outside of waiting for them to return. This is perhaps most common with our WikiEd student nominations, but it also sometimes happens with even regular editors. Other times, nominators can be unresponsive despite being active, and in such cases there's probably less room for waiting. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 03:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. What exactly is the procedure for rejecting a hook? Is it written down somewhere? Desertarun ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There's really no written procedure on how to reject a hook, and it really depends on the individual reviewer. Most commonly, a hook is rejected if it does not meet certain criteria (such as a length limit of 200 characters, the hook fact not being mentioned or cited in the article, or if the hook is inaccurate). There's also the whole can of worms that is "interestingness to a broad audience", and both reviewers and nominators have different interpretations about what exactly is interesting to a broad audience. As for nominations themselves, generally what happens is that a reviewers believes that an article cannot pass the DYK criteria for the foreseeable future, in which case they add the {{subst:DYKno}} tick to the nomination page along with an explanation. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 09:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. So would it be beneficial to write down somewhere something that says "if the nominator doesn't make a meaningful attempt to fix problems in 2 weeks, then the nomination can be marked for closure and will be rejected after a further 7 days of no response"? Desertarun ( talk) 09:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What I usually do is if a nominator hasn't responded to a comment anywhere between a week to a month, I'll give them a ping and/or a talk page message, and if there's still no response after a few days or a week, I mark the nomination for closure. Other reviewers do things similarly, particularly BlueMoonset who does a lot of nominator pinging and messaging. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 09:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have a definite time scale written into rules. In some cases the nominator actually wants the DYK to close but won't formally withdraw and keeping these alive is a timesink for you, BMS and others. We should also have a lot of discretion, for users like yourself, to do what is in the best interests of DYK. Desertarun ( talk) 10:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Postponing for six months is just kicking the can down the road and is unlikely to be efficient as there would be repetition. The review process, by its nature, is intended to expose awkward issues and so it's natural for these to arise and cause difficulty. What's mainly needed is a process for getting third opinions if the nominator and reviewer don't agree on a good way forward. I usually ask for another reviewer, using the icon. Andrew🐉( talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Could we automatically add the after two weeks of no comments from the reviewer? Sometimes, it is the reviewer that leaves the conversation Desertarun ( talk) 13:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you automatically determine that it's the reviewer who needs to respond as opposed to the nominator? It seems to me that this proposal wants to add unneeded complexity and detailed steps that make things more regimented though not improved for reviewers and nominators. Definitive time scales run up against real life, and also whether more or less generosity is needed in a particular case. The initial process described at the top lists steps, many of which are not applicable or never used on some nominations. I'm with those in this thread who don't see a problem that needs to be solved. And I'm completely against the idea of pausing nominations that are in trouble, much less six months (though if someone's going to be away for regular vacation, I don't consider that a pause, per se): if a nomination has been hanging around for too long, it should be failed, and that's typically what ultimately happens, assuming it isn't fixed and passed first. We can certainly be more rigorous with deadlines if it's important, but there seems to be an unspoken consensus that we give nominations good faith attempts to cross the finish line. Reviewers are always free to put time limits on needed work and reject if these aren't met. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The previous list was archived minutes ago; this new list below includes all 19 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 18. We currently have a total of 156 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 70, down another 10 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Cornelia Chase Brant
• July 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Tobias Adrian
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/History of the Jews in Odessa

Other old nominations:

• July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Herschel Albert Prins (ALT3c needs checking)
• July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert M. Briggs
• July 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Meme Man
• August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren
• August 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Powel Griffitts
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Why (Yoko Ono song)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Hans Drewanz
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Venezuela at the 2020 Summer Olympics
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Brajesh Singh
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/A Human Work
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Distance education in Chicago Public Schools in 1937
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred Koerppen
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Klaus Storck
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Hill (opera)
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/S. Isaac, Campbell & Company
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Brian O'Neill (journalist) (two articles)

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• ... that after Thomas Doughty is sentenced to death by Francis Drake, the two men dine and receive communion together just before Doughty's execution? ( nom)

@ Hu Nhu, Tone, and Theleekycauldron: I feel that this hook reads strangely in present tense, as if it describes a scene in a film, even though this is a historical event. I've already WP:BOLDly rephrased it into past tense ("was", "dined", "received") but would just like to seek some approval. Is there any objection to this change? Thanks. —  RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

🤠 works for me theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 17:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• My choice was the first proposed hook, but yes, do change this one to past tense. -- Tone 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• My choice, too was the first proposed hook; nevertheless, I simply appreciate being considered for the DYK and the work of those who have promoted the nomination. Since I proposed the current hook, too, it is quite acceptable and I believe the tense changes work well. Thank you all for your kind attention. Hu Nhu ( talk) 23:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, every remaining approved U.S. hook either:

1. Was nominated or approved by me
   1. Template:Did you know nominations/Joni Albrecht
   2. Template:Did you know nominations/Tyler Gilbert
   3. Template:Did you know nominations/Wayward Son (novel)
2. Has an image
   1. Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham O. Woodruff (also reviewed by me)
   2. Template:Did you know nominations/CitySpire (reviewed by me)
   3. Template:Did you know nominations/Carnegie Hall Tower
3. Is reserved for a specific date
   1. Template:Did you know nominations/2021 New York City Marathon
   2. Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris

That's every currently approved U.S. hook we have. Someone else can promote my hooks, but more importantly, we should consider promoting some of these without their attached images. They're not all vital. I left rows blank in the prep sets, there should be room for quite a few. It should work out fine for a few prep sets, but we're just running dry on U.S. hooks. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 08:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

We can't promote every nomination that has a picture with its picture - there are too many pictures and not enough picture hook slots. You can promote more without a picture. (I removed mine from the list as he's British). Desertarun ( talk) 09:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's only circa 20 US hooks in the backlog, then surely we don't need to leave half the slots for US hooks (when there are a quite more than 20 approved non-US hooks)? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ahaha of course the one i didn't click on is british. I'll get on some promotions, thanks theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 09:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I promoted one of yours to prep 4, now its promoted you can move it elsewhere if you prefer. I couldn't promote the other one because being in Europe I couldn't access the US website to verify the hook. Desertarun ( talk) 10:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, should theleekycauldron wish the hook to be moved elsewhere now that it's promoted, or have it modified, or anything else, they should post to this page asking someone uninvoled to do it for them, not do it themselves. This is true for anyone who nominates or reviews a hook: once it's in prep or queue, someone uninvolved should make changes thereafter. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset: to my credit, i did guess beforehand that being able to mess with my own hook after promotion would be a rather dumb permission to grant. I asked first— theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 04:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Joseph2302: 20 exactly—that's impressive theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 09:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tonic Immobility is another US-origin hook if they're needed, but I agree that it's a good thing we're seeing a broader representation as of late. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 10:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

promoted theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Desertarun and BlueMoonset: Preps 1 and 2 need three U.S. bios between them—there are only three available, that I'm aware, on this list. I can't promote any of them, could either of you help out? Thanks so much theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 22:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/William McAndrew (educator), but still theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 22:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Need" is a strong word. If there's only 12 US hooks left, we don't need to be prioritising them other any other hooks, when there are currently 91 approved hooks. Based on those numbers, we should only be having 1 US hook per set (as only about 1 in 8 approved hooks is a US hook). Anything else is just preferential treatment to US hooks, which isn't fair. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, while it is usually the case that there is a glut of U.S.-based hooks, that doesn't seem to be the case now. As it says on the Prep pages, Because a preponderance of hooks on the approved nominations page are biographies or U.S.-related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on biographies or U.S. topics in any given set, but never more than half from either category. If the U.S. hooks are hard to come by, then one a set is fine—usually appropriate implies that there are (admittedly rare) times when it isn't appropriate, like now, though I'm trying to recall when we last had this situation; similarly, if the proportion goes back up, then we can again adjust accordingly. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset and Joseph2302: all right—I didn't want to make the call myself, because I'm the only one currently assembling prep sets, but I'm happy to decrease the number of U.S. hooks. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 01:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have a date request for 2021 New York City Marathon to run on November 7 (date of race). I know this is about 10 weeks away, which is longer than acceptable according to the DYK rules: The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. But is it okay to still have this date request or not? I imagine the DYK hook would get a lot more views running on the day of the race. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would have no issues with this, but no doubt the DYK top brass will come up with a definitive answer to your question in due course!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:IAR for this, please. The NY City Marathon is a pretty big deal. — Maile ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also on board with honouring the date request. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 03:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Right now, we have six preps ready to go to queue. Cwmhiraeth has been the primary promoter from prep to queue for days (even weeks, if not months). When I log on in the mornings, I usually see that Cwmhiraeth has a couple of promoted queues at the top, and I try to add a couple. Anybody else available to do a few? Thanks. — Maile ( talk) 00:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

For the 100th time: Wikipedia is not a place to promote things. E Eng 00:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

is EEng just the horseback jesus of DYK? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 04:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the ass Jesus rode in on. E Eng 04:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This may sound like a stupid question, but once my article has been promoted, can I change the hook that has been chosen by the promoter? GreatLakesShips ( talk) 19:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions or questions are welcome to be discussed here. Flibirigit ( talk) 19:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My article SS Cayuga has been moved to Prep 6 with the hook "... that the steel package freighter Cayuga (pictured) was one of the first steel freighters on the Great Lakes?" as opposed to my preferred hook, "... that the six-year-old steel freighter Cayuga (pictured) was sunk by a wooden freighter twenty years older than her?". What are your thoughts? GreatLakesShips ( talk) 20:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips, my thought is that I'm confused. You yourself provided both hooks. May I ask why you would provide more than one hook when you have a strong preference for a particular hook? Schwede 66 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Schwede66, it's not at all unusual to provide more than one hook in case the reviewer has issues with the original one; the expectation is that the initial hooks are listed in order of preference, so the reviewer doesn't have to request more if the original proves unacceptable. My question here is that reviewer Gen. Quon only mentions "hook", singular, in their review, which makes me wonder if only the original hook was reviewed, in which case ALT1 has not actually been approved and should not be promoted. Gen. Quon, did you only mean to approve the original hook or both hooks? Pinging promoter Capsulecap, so they're aware of this discussion. In specific answer to GreatLakesShips, you may not make changes in prep to your own hooks once they've been promoted, but as Flibirigit notes, starting a discussion here is the way to proceed if you have any issues at all regarding the hook promoted to prep. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Personally, the way I deal with it is as follows: If I have a strong preference for a particular hook, I provide just one. If the reviewer isn't happy with it, they can say so and then an ALTx can be provided. Schwede 66 00:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Y I have changed the hook for you GreatLakesShips. Capsulecap ^{( talk • contribs)} 00:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Capsulecap: Thanks. GreatLakesShips ( talk) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in here. I should've been clearer when I said that both looked good, but I too preferred the one about the boat being sunk by a wooden freighter. Odd!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• A bit late, but for the record the correct wording would have been "... that the six-year-old steel freighter Cayuga (pictured) was sunk by a wooden freighter twenty years older than her she? (That's ignoring, of course, the stupidity and pretentiousness of referring to ships as she.) E Eng 05:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought I had checked, but apparently I'm blind, because when the Julie Hayden hook was swapped with the American Radiator Building hook, it was in there with the HSBC Tower hook in Q1, so now there are two hooks about NYC buildings live on the main page. It's not a huge deal but still, that's on me. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Duly noted. We'll be more lenient on the sentencing.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

appreciate it. 🤠 theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 02:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

According to this list i complied, there are 84 approved nominations. Here are the nominations broken down into several factors, organized by average space in a prep set of 8: (Last updated 29 August 2021 at 10:02 UTC)

By country (these'll add to a little more than 84, but there are some nominations in two countries)

• United States: 26 (2.48 in 8)
• United Kingdom: 13 (1.24 in 8)
• Germany: 9 (0.86 in 8, nearly entirely thanks to Gerda Arendt)
• Other: 9 (0.86 in 8)
• China: 2 (0.19 in 8)
• Japan: 2
• New Zealand: 1
• Rhodesia: 2
• Afghanistan: 1 (0.095 in 8)
• Austria: 1
• Australia: 1
• Burma: 1
• Burundi: 1
• Egypt: 1
• Finland: 1
• France: 1
• Gambia: 1
• Indonesia: 1
• Ireland: 1
• Lebanon: 1
• The Netherlands: 1
• Ojibwe: 1
• Peru: 1
• Rwanda: 1
• Serbia: 1
• Sweden: 1
• Vanatu: 1
• Vietnam: 1
• Venezuela: 1
• World: 1

By image

• With image: 50 (4.76 in 8)
• Without image: 34 (3.24 in 8)

By biographical status

• Biographical: 36 (3.43 in 8)
• Non-biographical: 48 (4.75 in 8)

Given that the majority of hooks have an image even though they can only be 1 in 8, I'm going to promoting image hooks without their image when I need to and when it makes sense. Also, a ratio of about 2 or 3 U.S. hooks and 1 UK hook in every prep set seems about right, although I'm flexible on that. In terms of biographical, I'm sticking to a max of 3 or 4, probably around 3 for most. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 09:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Great idea and list. I'm just going to point out that Ojibwe is an indigenous group. The country would be Canada. SL93 ( talk) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

yeaaaa, i felt like it was more useful to have it as Ojibwe anyway but six of one theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• ... that Angelo Tsarouchas, sometimes called "The King of Greek Ethnic Comedy", nearly abandoned his hopes of being a comedian because his wife at the time thought it was a bad idea?

I'm not sure about the sourcing of the hook fact here. The hook fact is mentioned in the Montreal Rampage source and verified, but it's the only source I could find that mentions the title. Are there other sources out there that confirm the "The King of Greek Ethnic Comedy" nickname? Because if the Montreal Rampage is the only one that called him that, the hook may need to be revised. Pinging @ BuySomeApples, Favre1fan93, and Theleekycauldron: Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 09:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

my bad, I only checked for the second part. I'll get back to this in the morninf theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 09:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw the verified part with the Montreal Rampage, but it does appear with a quick search they are the only ones using that term. @ BuySomeApples: are you okay if that is struck from the hook and just made it "* ... that Angelo Tsarouchas nearly abandoned his hopes of being a comedian because his wife at the time thought it was a bad idea?"? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Using the hook without the nickname is fine @ Favre1fan93: and @ Narutolovehinata5: I don't really mind much either way! BuySomeApples ( talk) 17:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron how can we go about adjusting the hook as I suggested and was agreed upon by BuySomeApples? Can the changes just be made in the prep area? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Favre1fan93: yeah, as long as there's a consensus, you can go ahead and modify the hook in the prep set. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 19:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, adjusted here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk)

I was just notified of the DYK appearance of my nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Dyadic rational, but was surprised to notice that the wording of the hook was different than what I had proposed and what had been promoted. I have no idea who did it and don't really have a clear picture of how to trace through the DYK machinery to find out. In this case the wording change was mostly harmless, merely making the hook more cumbersome and technical. But I tend to think that such changes should at least produce a notification, or an update to the nomination page, or something like that to make it possible to find out who did it and why they thought it was necessary to do that. Preferably, it would be best to find out about such things before the fact, rather than afterwards, in case a change makes the changed hook inaccurate. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to this change by Amakuru 1. If so, that looks to me like one of the tweaks that sometimes happen when Queue sets are reviewed before they go live on the Main Page. — Maile ( talk) 00:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That looks like the one, yes. As I said, in this case it is harmlessly pedantic but it is easy with technical topics to make mistakes in what seems like harmless rewording. A double-check with someone more knowledgeable would have been a good idea. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, but see, why are tweaks being made so late in the game? Stuff like that should happen upstream, but it doesn't for the following reason. One of DYK's structural problems is that there's a large group of editors (most nominators, most reviewers) who are only 85% effective at catching problems, then a next stage of editors (prep-set assemblers) who are 90% effective, a further group (admins taking preps to Qs) who are 95% effective. But the people really, really good a catching problems (and sometimes, as in your case, making things worse) don't really focus until the Q stage. And by then the nom page is long closed -- and that's because, well, I'm not sure why noms have to be closed when they're now closed. I've sometimes suggested keeping nom discussions open until the hook has appeared on the main page then swapped off, or reopening a nom whenever a change is proposed to its hook -- in either case, so that further discussion will go on on the nom page, where interested parties are watching -- but that's either a lot of noms kept open that aren't available for building preps -- not clear how much of a problem that really is -- or a lot of reopening, because as we all know a LOT of quality control only happens at the last moment.

Not suggesting what to do about all this, just listing some of the major points of interest in the house of cards. One small improvement some of us have suggested, which has got some uptake, is encouraging promotors to provide, on the nom page as it's closed, a link to the prep set, so at least participants have a fighting chance of going to the prep set and watchlisting it. (For technical reasons it's not easy to replicate that idea at the stage at which preps move on to Q.) E Eng 00:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it would be very practical to leave a note about such changes on the nom page. However, it would be easy and very desirable to use ping(s) in the edit summary, as I had done here. If you do this, remember that templates don't work in edit summaries, so you'll have to include a regular link to any user you want to notify. And, of course, any major changes would ideally be noted/discussed on this talk page. MANdARAX •  XAЯAbИAM 01:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mandarax your method is a great idea, and pretty simple to do. Let's not put it in our regular page-long list of admin "dos and don'ts" - because it would be lost. But if there's a way we could stick one sentence about it at the top of the section heading for the Queues, it would be very helpful. Probably not a good idea to assume we are all going to remember this practical idea. But a sentence right above the Queues would be helpful. — Maile ( talk) 01:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Style 1 - "Admins who make changes to individual hooks in any Queue, with the exception of minor punctuation changes, please leave a Ping to the nominator in the Queue's edit summary."

Style 2 -"Admins who make changes to individual hooks in any Queue, with the exception of minor punctuation changes, please link to the user page of the nominator in the edit summary, to notify the nominator"

Style 3 -"Admins who make changes to individual hooks in any Queue, with the exception of minor punctuation changes, please notify the nominator with a link to their user page in the edit summary."

BlueMoonset you're our resident wording guru. What do you think of the above sentence at the top of the Queues section? — Maile ( talk) 01:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this idea. If pings work in edit summaries, yeah, we should be pinging nominators when we make changes to the text of hooks in the prep sets. We could restrict this to math and science hooks, too—they're most likely to have this jargon tripwire. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 01:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I like this idea. I think "leave a ping" might be ambiguous and misinterpreted as using the {{ ping}} template, though. Maybe something like "Please link to the user page of the nominator in the edit summary, to notify the nominator"? — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So noted above. Thanks. — Maile ( talk) 02:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you need to explicitly say, "...using a link of the form User:Someuser (templates like {{U|Someuser}} won't work)". E Eng 03:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mx's pinging idea is a very good one, but two points:
  • I would cut the punctuation exception in favor of something like "with the exception of minor formatting fixes". There are just too many people who don't get restrictive vs unrestrictive clauses, proper use of hyphens, and other stuff that separate the truly elite from the hoi polloi.
  • Way more people, beyond the nominator, should know of any change because often the nominator is a relatively minor character in the discussion, especially in complex situations where (right now) further changes (sometimes undesirable) are most likely to be injected downstream of the nom page. It really should be some subset of those who participated in the nom discussion, but unfortunately we don't know what that subset is, so it has to be everyone. The only way to do that is to somehow touch the nom page so everyone gets pinged.

I'll say again that the real problem is that we need to push 99.44% of the quality control upstream onto the nom page, while the nom discussion is still going on, rather than only 90% of the QC happening on the nom page now, the rest happening catch-as-catch-can at the prep and Q stages (not to mention ERRORS). How about this:

• Each nom discussion should end with a clear and definite statement of what the hook will be, and its exact wording, instead of the prep builder choosing among several hooks for a given nom. If the prep builder thinks the wording should be adjusted, then he or she says so on the nom page just like any other participant.
• A prep set should be a list of links to 6 or 8 or 12 nom pages which remain open, not (like it is now) a template mirroring the Q template with all the nom pages closed. Once a prep set is assembled, quality-control attention begins to focus on that group of hooks, and under this approach any further discussion or adjustment to the hook, stimulated by that focused attention, will take place on the nom page, as a continuation of the original discussion instead of disconnected from it.
• When it's time to "promote to Q", that's when the complicated main-page template (which currently is assembled at prep time) is assembled and the nom pages closed. As with the prep builder, if the promoting admin sees any issues with a hook, then the nom page continues to remain open for continued discussion until the problem is resolved.

That's a thumbnail sketch but I hope the idea comes across. E Eng 04:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I approved the hook, but didn't make any changes to it. I think DYK could do with a lot more rules/guidance because it is very unclear what users should do in many respects. Encouraging new users would be good, particularly nominators who become specialists in that but not necessarily content creation. Desertarun ( talk) 08:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  DYK definitely needs a lot more rules. Definitely. E Eng 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is just revisiting a discussion we had a while back which was much more thorough and which rejected such requirements. I don't have time to find the earlier discussion now but as I recall we came to an agreement for some sort of automated notification system. I didn't pursue it at the time because there was no follow-up, and I've had an enforced absence from Wikipedia for a while, but if there's still a concern about notifications, the previous discussion should be the starting point; we don't want to go over the same sterile ground a second time when there is no need for it. Update: Actually, if pings work in edit summaries, this looks like potentially a better solution than the automated notification system proposed in the earlier discussion, though obviously the details would need to be worked out. Gatoclass ( talk) 13:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. As suggested above, just one short and simple sentence for admins to leave a courtesy note in the edit summary. No more than that. The last thing this project needs is more, "Blah ... blah .... blah ... " for admins. — Maile ( talk) 13:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, but courtesy note for whom? The nominator? The reviewer? That's the minimum. The problem, which I've said over and over, is that hooks get tinkered with downstream of the nom page, so the tinkerer doesn't have the benefit of the discussion that led to the hook in the first place. E Eng 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes they do - it's a simple matter for anybody to check the nomination page to read the prior discussion - certainly, I would never make a substantial adjustment to a hook without doing so and would assume that others do the same.

  And the courtesy ping should go to the nominator, because they are the most interested party and the one most likely to pick up any possible issues with a wording change. Nominators are also those most likely to object to any such change (see this very discussion as an example) - the number of reviewers who care to do so is negligible. Gatoclass ( talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  • substantial adjustment – Yeah, except over and over we end up on this very page discussing a change someone thought wasn't "substantial" which turned out to be so. You're saying you'd check the nom page if your change is substantial, but you really can't know whether a change qualifies as substantial without checking the nom page, because there are often hidden subtleties. Hook discussions should take place on the nom page, period, until it's final, final, FINAL.
  • others do the same – Hah! Are you kidding?
  • nominator ... most interested ... reviewers who care to do so is negligible –  – I'm sure that -- in most cases -- it's the nominator who -- on the whole -- is most interested -- all other things being equal. But those are flabby, good-chunk-of-the-time, well-I-guess-it's-better-than-nothing assumptions. Often the nominator is a naive new editor, so that it's other participants on the nom page who got the hook into shape. It's just absurd to have a careful discussion with multiple participants be followed by a largely invisible series of tinkerings (at three different points -- prep, Q, and ERRORS) out of sight those who know the most about the subject, by a single person working on the fly who may perhaps have looked at the nom page but certainly hasn't absorbed it. (Often, the hook change is completely silent, being made as it's pasted into prep, so that there isn't even a diff anywhere highlighting that it happened.) We know a lot of good fixes are made in that process, but we also know that a lot screwups are introduced too, by people who think they know what's going on but don't. It's this kind of "well, good enough I guess" thinking that has DYK stuck at 95% quality instead of 99.5%.

  E Eng 17:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, there are (occasional) screwups - no process is perfect. But without the copyediting done post-review, there would be far more. Your perennial proposed fixes to the process, however, are usually vague and completely impractical (or sometimes, as in the case above, bordering on unintelligible).

So please let's try to keep this discussion focused. Maile66 has made a concrete proposal, let's discuss that rather than get into yet another fruitless brainstorming session about how we could completely overturn everything and come up with something entirely new and foolproof, because history teaches that nothing will come of that except more frustration and time-wasting. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• no process is perfect – Not looking for perfect -- looking for better than what we have.
• without the copyediting done post-review, there would be far more – I'm not arguing against the copyediting that is currently done post-review; it's very needed. I am arguing that that post-review work, done by the smaller group of people who are really good at catching problems, would be better done on the nom page, where all participants can see it, to avoid the one-step-forward-two-steps-back incidents we regularly experience. To allow that, I'm proposing that nom pages remain open longer, until everyone who's going to look at the hook has looked at it, and that all changes and discussion go on on that page, until the hook is absolutely final.
• Maile66 has made a concrete proposal – So did I. I proposed that (1) nom pages remain open while the hook is in prep, and (2) a prep set should be a list of links to nom pages instead of a template containing the hooks themselves. It's not complicated and not intended to completely overturn everything and come up with something entirely new and foolproof.
  I should be clear, though, that Maile's idea would definitely help, and I think it should be made best practice immediately.
• another fruitless brainstorming session – It will certainly be that with your attitude. Chewing-gum-and-bailing-wire fixes is how DYK got to be the creaking, clanking Rube Goldberg contraption it is. (Also, as long as I'm involved the discussion it cannot, by definition, be fruitless.) ^[1]

E Eng 03:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass I closed this earlier as an admin Diff 1, and EEng reverted my admin close. Diff 2 Do what you like about that, but I don't think non-admins are supposed to be reverting an admin action. But I'm not stupid enough to get into an edit war by reverting the revert. I don't have time or patience to read his wall of stream of consciousness above. When I edited his re-writing of the Admin Instructions, since he's never been an Admin and wasn't perfect, he reverted me on that. He seems to think he knows better than admins how they are supposed to do their jobs. Quite frankly, EEng is beginning to tire me. This really involves admins, so what EEng opines has little interest to me. As a result, I removed this talk page from my watch list. Let's move on. Admins know their jobs from doing their jobs, not from siting on the sidelines. — Maile ( talk) 02:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• I closed this earlier as an admin, and EEng reverted my admin close – Sorry, Maile, but you forgot to add the {{I'm An Admin So What I Say Goes}} template to your close, so I didn't know. Seriously, if you actually think that admins have some special authority to declare discussions closed, and that I don't think non-admins are supposed to be reverting an admin action, then you need to go back to admin school. Seriously.
• He seems to think he knows better than admins how they are supposed to do their jobs – Based on the quotation in the previous bullet, it seems that might actually be the case. Wait ... Did you really say what I said you said? I better check again. OK, here it is ... I don't think non-admins are supposed to be reverting an admin action. Huh. You did actually say it. I can hardly believe there's an admin who actually thinks that.
• When I edited his re-writing of the Admin Instructions ... he reverted me on that – I reverted your changes because, when I explained why I found them not to be improvements, you were unable to give a coherent argument for why they were, and indeed your text said things that obviously weren't true. Those interested may wish to see here and here and here.
• This really involves admins – There's nothing special about the administrator role at DYK, beyond acting as final, trusted gatekeepers to keep vandalism off the front page. It should not be that quality control upstream is so poor that admins are fixing hooks at the Q stage. It's like the fall-protection harnesses worn by highrise window-washers: they're the final layer of protection, there for the once-in-lifetime moment when a worker slips off the work platform at 600 feet up; if workers find themselves regularly falling off the platform and escaping death only by grace of the harness, then there's something wrong with their equipment or their work practices, and that needs to be fixed. (Available on request: alternative analogy involving relying on your emergency brake because your service brake doesn't really work.)

E Eng 03:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I was gonna make some witty comment but damn I just can't believe what I read. Maile, that admin bit has really gone to your head. Being an admin doesn't protect you from being reverted by non-admins and doesn't give you any special authority to close a discussion or decide what a page says (any page, including pages about admin stuff... instructions for admins are not written by admins). We're all on equal footing when it comes to that; your access to tools doesn't make you some kind of super-editor. Levivich 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Maile, I think you should apologize to EEng. I don't think they deserved to be talked to that way–we're all trying to make the site a better place. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 00:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Watch it or he'll block you for talking back to an admin. E Eng 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Seriously, I appreciate the thought but as someone once observed, I'm pretty much flameproof.

Arbor-treeish break

• Of course post-promotion hook changes should be recorded somewhere (like the nom page), and interested parties (nom, reviewer) notified. That's just part of our ethos of transparency through excellent record-keeping. Also, an admin may make a mistake when "tweaking" a hook late in the process, and the editors who are most familiar with the hook should be notified so they can double-check the work and raise any issues. This is a no-brainer for me. Levivich 19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair, no one's against notifying people (or, at least, notifying one person -- the nominator) of changes when the hook in prep or queue. The argument is between those who think an exhortation to ping the nominator (when the change is "signficant") is enough, and the despised lone visionary (I) who urges that we simply keep the nom page open as the one and only venue for refinement of the hook, until it's final, final, FINAL. E Eng 21:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Post-promotion hook changes are recorded somewhere - in the archive. There is no point in adding them to nom pages - nobody ever looks at these pages after the nomination has run its course, so that would just be pointless bureaucracy.

Since we all agree on the usefulness of edit summary pings however (well, actually I have some misgivings, but am putting them aside out of sheer exhaustion with the topic), then all we really need to do at this point is come up with an agreed wording to add to the instructions for copyeditors. Might I suggest something along the following lines:

Users making substantial changes to a hook after its promotion to prep (ie, other than normal copyedits for syntax and grammar etc.) are strongly encouraged to notify the nominator, and if thought necessary, the reviewer, with a ping in the edit summary. Users may also open a discussion at WT:DYK in lieu of edit summary pings, again with a ping to involved parties. Gatoclass ( talk) 07:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"Normal copyedits" should not be exempt. The usual problem is a change that looks like a normal copyedit to the person doing it but turns out to introduce an issue. — Kusma ( talk) 08:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a worthwhile point, and something I'd been giving some thought to after making that last post. Nonetheless I'd be reluctant to insist on pings for every single copyedit no matter how minor. But I do agree that seemingly minor copyedits can sometimes change the meaning in undesirable ways, so some additional wording at least should be added to the above to address that. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of this is that no one person can be trusted to judge for themselves what is or is not a normal copyedit for syntax and grammar etc., out of sight of the several people who crafted the hook on the nom page -- and the prep and queue templates are out of sight because no one but DYK addicts have them watchlisted. If I was DYK King Emperor ^[1] I'd decree that any change should be pinged but having lent out my Mantle of Greatness, and with my Cloak of Authority at the cleaners, I'll suggest instead that other than uttlerly trivial formatting changes – grammar, syntax, and punctuation changes should always be pinged. Note that I left it silent on spelling; while we do have, now and then, the ol' Am–Brit spelling slipup, I can't bring myself to insist that a ping be issued on every spelling typo. Of course, under the do-it-all-on-the-nompage approach advocated below, every change, no matter how minor, will be automatically and effortlessly visible to everyone who's shown an interest in the hook (not just the nominator), so we don't have to argue about what qualifies as minor or trivial. E Eng 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It's true, pings for every minor copy edit would get annoying. Here's an idea: if the changes were recorded on the nomination page, editors who wanted to be informed could watchlist the page, and be informed without pings. As a bonus, anyone wanting to review the changes later would have them all in one easy to find place. Levivich 14:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It's better than that: users who want to be informed -- the nominator, the reviewer, probably the article author/expander, plus anyone who participated in the nom discussion that crafted the hook -- will already have the nom page watchlisted, as a side effect of having editing it duirng the original nom discussion! Why, it's like magic! They're just the people who ought to be notified, and any edit to the nom page will notify them, all of them at once and without human effort! Amazing! Sorry, Gclass, but your statement that nobody ever looks at these pages after the nomination has run its course is just ridiculous – again, the participants will all have the nom page watchlisted.

It's stunningly obvious that the nom page is the right place to note (and discuss, if need be) any hook changes right up to main-page appearance. By the time you look up the nominator to ping him or her (and that's just one person who gets notified) you could have just as easily grabbed a link to the nom page and edited it (and thereby notified everyone). E Eng 14:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Watchlists are so much easier to overlook than pings. If all of your hooks require multiple copyedits, you deserve the annoyance of many pings. — Kusma ( talk) 16:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Except the ping proposal is not to ping almost anyone (just the nominator) so whether a watchlist item is so much easier to overlook than pings is a vacuous argument. Annoyance certainly has nothing to do with it. Watchlisting is perfectly adequate during the regular nom discussion, and there's no reason to switch away from it in favor of this anemic just-ping-one-of-the-many-participants approach at the very moment when time is growing short and the hook is being altered by someone who doesn't know anything about the thinking that went into it in first place.

Not sure what you mean by If all of your hooks require multiple copyedits – my hooks certainly haven't required that, but several have been fucked up by some slave to WP:MISSSNODGRASS. E Eng 16:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Recording every copyedit on the nomination page would be completely impractical as it would substantially increase the amount of time set reviewers would have to spend on sets, the end result being that they would likely stop copyediting altogether as not worth the bother - certainly, I would. Also, as Kusma notes, nomination pages are not closely watched and days could pass before anyone responded, if at all. WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS are the appropriate pages to open discussions about hooks already in prep where required. Otherwise, edit summary pings are a far easier and more reliable method of notifying editors, that is the topic at hand, so please let's try to stay on topic. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

As for hooks "being altered by someone who doesn't know anything about the thinking that went into it in first place", that is a separate issue. As I've said previously, I personally never make a substantial change to a hook without first checking the nomination page to ensure I haven't missed anything, and I assume others do the same, but if that is not the case, then checking the nom page should simply be made a requirement; problem solved. Gatoclass ( talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait that doesn't make sense to me. How much copyediting are you doing to approved hooks, such that recording every copy edit would be so burdensome as to make it impractical and cause you to give up copyediting altogether? I mean, I just don't believe that we're approving hooks that require more than 1 copyedit per hook on average... I believe the amount of copyediting is far less than 1 copyedit per hook on average. Am I wrong? Also, what is your basis for saying nom pages aren't "closely watched"? What does "closely" mean in this context? I've always had every DYK nom page I've contributed to on my watchlist. Are you saying that's not the norm? What's the evidence for that? How are edit summary pings "far easier and more reliable"? What makes them more reliable, or easier, than an edit to a nomination page? And what about the fact that pings don't always go through (but nom pages are watchlisted)? And what about pinging multiple editors? How is pinging multiple editors in an edit summary easier than posting a note at the nom page? If you wanted to ping everyone who contributed to the hook, how would you know who to ping, if you didn't look at the nom page and gather together the list of editors, which seems far more work than just posting on the nom page? None of these assertions you make are making sense to me, I wish you would explain more rather than just asserting what's better/easier. Levivich 16:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, don't fuck with Levivich. He'll shoot questions at you like bullets. And he's got really, really good aim. E Eng 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict) "1 copyedit per hook" would actually amount to a lot of work if a copy editor was expected to respond to every one by opening a nomination page and making a new entry there. As I've said on umpteen occasions, even for an unproblematic hook set, it takes an average of perhaps 40 minutes to verify it - an hour plus for a set with issues. Set verification involves opening and manhandling literally dozens of pages, including source pages, possibly multiple prep and queue pages, nomination pages, earwig, google translate, and so on. It's an onerous and difficult job and one which requires commitment and concentration. Now I can only speak for myself, but if I'm also going to be expected to open a new discussion on a nomination page for every copyedit I make, then I'm sorry, but that sounds very much like the tipping point for me.

Apart from that however, as I've said, nomination pages are not a useful place to open discussions because people often do not respond in a timely manner; you have to remember that once a hook is in the queue, it's on a countdown to the main page. Pings are a method of getting immediate attention, and it's very easy for an admin to simply add one to the edit summary. If more substantial discussion is required, the appropriate venues are WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS, because then even if the nominators/reviewers are unavailable, others can contribute to the discussion. Gatoclass ( talk) 17:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Like I've said several times now, you keep responding to something other than that which is being proposed, and it would really help if you'd just wait until I've laid it out in detail below before declaring that the sky is falling. In the meantime, though ...

• "1 copyedit per hook" would actually amount to a lot of work – What Levivich said was I believe the amount of copyediting is far less than 1 copyedit per hook on average. Am I wrong? You didn't answer that.
• Set verification involves opening and manhandling literally dozens of pages – If that's true, six more (the nom pages) would be a drop in the bucket. Or were you exaggerating about the dozens of pages? Anyway, it wouldn't be six more, because you'd only have to open the nom page if you find a problem.
• nomination pages are not a useful place to open discussions because people often do not respond in a timely manner – They might not respond to a ping either.
• once a hook is in the queue, it's on a countdown to the main page – That's the whole point. All that stuff shouldn't be happening at the last minute, during a "countdown". There's no reason it all can't be done earlier, in the context of the nom page, and only then, when all the checks are done and the hook is absolutely final, would the hook be added to a queue.
• because then even if the nominators/reviewers are unavailable, others can contribute to the discussion – If there are concerns about the hook, and the nominator and reviewer and others who did the initial review don't respond, then this hook shouldn't be bound for the main page. For the 100th time: everything, including all those checks you do, should happen on the nom page, before the hook is added to a Q template. How does that make things harder for you? It takes away the deadline, and puts responsibility for a fix back on those who have the most invested in getting it fixed.

You seem to take it as a given that everything has to work the way it works because, well, that's the way it works and that's the way our forefathers did it so it has to work that way it has to work that way don't you get it it has to work that way there is no other way. One more time: why don't you just relax until I lay out the whole proposal below? E Eng 20:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

EEng, while I appreciate the fact that you and others take an interest in DYK procedures, as I'm sure I've said to you before, it becomes a problem when you start to make recommendations in areas in which you've had no experience. I'm not aware that you've ever put together a set, for example, and certainly, you've never done full set verifications, as admins are required to do when promoting to queue. Yet you continue to come up with these high-falutin' schemes about how it could all be done so much better.

Case in point: If there are concerns about the hook, and the nominator and reviewer and others who did the initial review don't respond, then this hook shouldn't be bound for the main page.

In an ideal world, sure, we could spend forever debating the pros and cons of every copyedit somebody wants to make. But we don't live in an ideal world. In the real world, every hook that gets pulled means that a substitute nomination has to be found - which adds exponentially to the time it takes to verify a set, because first of all a nomination has to be found that suits the set's topic balance, then it needs to be verified by the admin just like any other hook - and then chances are that that hook too needs a little work (which would then require opening yet another discussion in your ideal world). Pulling a hook, in short, is invariably a last resort measure because it means a lot more work for the set verifier, and indeed, everybody else. If I had to pull every hook that needs a copyedit for further discussion, it would either mean quadrupling my workload, or else admins like yours truly would be denuding sets and we'd never manage to get a completed set to the main page in a timely manner.

For the 100th time: everything, including all those checks you do, should happen on the nom page, before the hook is added to a Q template. How does that make things harder for you?

Hooks first get approved on the nom page, then they get promoted to prep by somebody (who will frequently do some copyediting at that point). Then they get to prep, and as they are now on a countdown to the main page, they start to get more scrutiny from other users who start to make corrections. Under your proposal, copyeditors would have to cruise the nominations page making their copyedits there, without knowing which hooks were about to be promoted. So basically, every hook on the nominations page would have to be copyedited - by everyone who takes an interest in copyediting - before they got promoted. The impracticality of this is surely obvious. So again, an ideal solution that won't work in the real world. Gatoclass ( talk) 01:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wahl, thahnks, Mister! Ah shore doo 'preciate yuhr skooling lil' ol' me 'bout dat dare Dee Whiy Kay, 'cause doncha know ah jes fehl off duh turnip truck 'n don' know nuttin' 'bout 'ow all dat durn cahm-plit-cayted stuff happ'n. Lawdy, ah shure ahm much 'bliged, Mr. Admin Sir! Tarnation, by gum! Jesus really, GC? Who do you think you're dealing with? I thoroughly understand the dynamics of the various stages a nom/hook passes through, the kinds of people who tend to participate at each stage, and the things that go wrong.
• Under your proposal, copyeditors would have to cruise the nominations page making their copyedits there – So now it's more obvious then ever that you haven't read even the bare outline, earlier in this thread, of what I'm suggesting. It's like if I said, "Hmmm, why don't we design an engine that isn't cooled by water", and before I say anything more you start going on and on about how an engine without cooling would soon self-destruct, like I'm some dummy who doesn't know that, instead of realizing (DUH!) that I must mean there'd be a substitute cooling medium e.g. air.

Twelve hours ago I suggested you wait until I'd posted a reasonably detailed proposal, yet here you are still blathering out your fantasies of doom under some random thing you imagine I'm saying. Now for the nth time, will you turn off the motormouth until you know what I have in mind? E Eng 04:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Lawdy, ah shure ahm much 'bliged, Mr. Admin Sir! Thanks! Nice to get some appreciation for once (and for future reference, any barnstar is good with me). Nice accent BTW!

I thoroughly understand the dynamics of the various stages a nom/hook passes through. You understand the process, yes, in the same way you might understand the rules of, say, baseball. But that's a different kind of understanding to actually standing over the plate and taking a swing at the ball. Unless you've done it, you just won't understand the challenges involved. That's the point I'm trying to make.

here you are still blathering out your fantasies of doom under some random thing you imagine I'm saying. Not at all, I simply responded to your post, isn't that what you do when somebody posts to you?

Anyhow, we still haven't seen your detailed proposal yet - quite frankly, I'm hoping we never do - but you are entitled to occupy your time any way you see fit. Hopefully though you won't be too disheartened by the likely response. Cheers, Gatoclass ( talk) 04:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia I tend to keep my expectations low so I can be pleasantly surprised. We realize you think you're giving as good as you get but (to continue the baseball analogy) you're in the big leagues here. I'll ping you when I'm done. E Eng 05:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

GC, the topic at hand is how to improve the way that eleventh-hour changes to hooks are handled, not one particular approach to that which you happen to favor, and note that the OP's formulation was Should post-promotion hook changes be recorded on the nomination page?. My proposal only seems impractical because you seem to think it's something other than what it is. I have some distractions this afternoon, but later I'll present it again, step by step and in detail. Stand by please. E Eng 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

In nine hours, our only filled queue will be promoted to the main page. Pinging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Schwede66, Wugapodes, Gatoclass and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that some of them can promote preps to queues. Many thanks to you all. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the current situation seems to be that I'm assembling most of the prep sets for the moment, I have no qualms in shamelessly plugging the list of approved hooks I reviewed, so that they don't sit around forever. They're ordered oldest at the top, so obviously no need to promote them all now or anything, but if someone could consider these the next time they build a prep set, that'd be quite helpful theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 05:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/TD2 - done SL93 ( talk) 06:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Christoph Strehl
• Template:Did you know nominations/Herschel Albert Prins - done SL93 ( talk) 06:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Cu hulu done SL93 ( talk) 08:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Clara Leiser - done SL93 ( talk) 06:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Barry Joule - done SL93 ( talk) 08:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Naga Thein Hlaing
• Template:Did you know nominations/Wayward Son (novel)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham O. Woodruff
• Template:Did you know nominations/Tyler Gilbert - done SL93 ( talk) 08:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Koenigia islandica
• Template:Did you know nominations/Brian O'Neill (journalist)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Ciulla
• Template:Did you know nominations/Joni Albrecht
• Template:Did you know nominations/Lori Gramlich
• Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Sumpter
• Template:Did you know nominations/John Olson (artist)
• Template:Did you know nominations/WCOS-TV
• Template:Did you know nominations/CitySpire
• Template:Did you know nominations/KPEC-TV
• Template:Did you know nominations/Darby Camp
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sharri MacDonald
• Template:Did you know nominations/Stephan Vanfleteren
• Template:Did you know nominations/Robert M. Briggs

I know this seems childish, but 21 hooks I can't promote is almost a quarter of the "approved" page, which restricts my options a bit in building sets. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 05:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I started on the list. Template:Did you know nominations/Wayward Son (novel) needs a different approved hook and a tagged issue fixed. SL93 ( talk) 06:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 06:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We're at 55 approved hooks—what happens now? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 09:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that means we go back to 24 hour rotations. SL93 ( talk) 09:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Blimey, a terrific job. Pinging admins, so one will switch us back to one set per day: Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Schwede66, Wugapodes, Gatoclass and Lee Vilenski. Desertarun ( talk) 09:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The 24 hour hooks usually reset at midnight UTC, so the change to 24 hour hooks should be done after 12:00 UTC (midday UTC, when the next queue goes live). (struck self as this is wrong!) And if there's any date requests, they'll need to be moved too. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've done a 12/24-hour switch before, so will leave it to someone who has, unless there's nobody available, in which case I will figure it out!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset: usually organises the changeover. Thanks to everyone who has worked so hard keeping DYK running smoothly over the last few weeks while we have been doing two sets a day. And particular thanks to editors who have done extra reviews so that we no longer have an appreciable backlog. Well done everyone! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I won't be available at the right time to switch it over. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 13:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• I believe User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates needs to be changed from 43200 to 86400 shortly after 8:00 pm Eastern, which should be doable for me. (Ping me if that's incorrect!) I'll set an alarm to remind myself, but in case something comes up, backup would be good.

Someone will also need to check preps and queues for special date requests that need moving. There don't seem to be any in Q5, so we've got a little time to do that. —valereee ( talk) 13:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

There's date requests for 11 and 12 September that will need adding to some specific preps after the date change is done (they're not in preps currently). Which may require a couple of other hooks to be moved. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

valereee is correct: the switchover will need to be made after midnight UTC, which is a little over eight hours from now, by making the change she mentions to User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates. I'll take a look to see what special occasion hooks may need to be moved so they are posted to the main page on the day requested, move what I can, and ask for admin help for those moves involving queues. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done —valereee ( talk) 00:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! We're all set. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

One move needs an admin, and soon!

The final hook in Queue 6, about Mahama Refugee Camp (a Paralympics hook), needs to be swapped into Queue 4 or {[queue|5}}, and we only have 70+ minutes to do the former swap. Note that this will mean the receiving queue will now have two Paralympics hooks instead of one. I'd like to suggest a swap with Queue 4, final hook for final hook ( Torreya Guardians), which I think works better. If we can't do it in time, then please note that Queue 5's Paralympics hook is the second-to-last, so the two Paralympics hooks would need to be separate from each other. Pinging Amakuru, Maile, valereee, and Schwede66, in the hopes that one of them can do the swap before midnight UTC.

I have made room for the two special occasion hooks for 11 and 12 September in Prep 4 and Prep 5 respectively. In my judgment, the latter's image was not sufficiently clear or interesting to warrant a lead slot, which is why I left the (admittedly not great) lead image in place. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Doing...  —  Amakuru ( talk) 23:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done @ BlueMoonset: I've swapped Mahama Refugee Camp and Torreya Guardians hooks between Q4 and Q6, as you suggested. Hopefully this is what you intended, but let me know if you need anything further!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 23:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru. It was what I intended, and we're in great shape. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous list was archived three days ago; this new list includes all 7 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 29. We currently have a total of 150 nominations, of which 92 have been approved, a gap of 58, down another 12 in the past eleven days, but climbing from a low gap of under 40. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis

Over one month old:

• July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Ni Yulan
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/History of the Jews in Odessa
• August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Nun saget Dank und lobt den Herren

Other old nominations:

• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Why (Yoko Ono song)
• August 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Hilde Scheppan
• August 29: Template:Did you know nominations/UEFA Euro 2004 Final

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to start adding categories to approved, non-promoted DYK nominations. I want to categorize the nominations by country, whether or not they're a bio, and whether or not it has an image. I'll remove the categories when the nomination closes—It just makes it easier for me to promote hooks, and it would allow us to keep a finger on the pulse on how much of each type of hook we have.

An example would be Category:Approved United States biographical DYK nominations with an image, or Category:Approved Germany DYK nominations. I could possible do Category:Approved Germany non-biographical DYK nominations without an image, but that is stuffy. They'd all have the appropriate parent categories, too.

Where would the best place to put these categories on the nom page be? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 03:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Amakuru, Maile66, and Cwmhiraeth: who do I ask for permission on this? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 23:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Theleekycauldron, BlueMoonset, and Wugapodes: I'm not sure who you would ask, it's such a unique idea. But I would start with getting feedback from the two editors who would be most knowledgeable on how this would work - that being BlueMoonset and Wugapodes. It's not a bad idea, but perhaps needs to be worked out on the mechanics of putting it into play. — Maile ( talk) 00:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the point in the right direction! theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 00:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

​ oop, forgot to ping theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 00:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend adding them on the nom page inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. How do you imagine these would be added? By hand? Programmatically? — Wug· a·po·des​ 03:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Wugapodes: We could ask the user to do so as part of the NewDYKNomination template. Neglecting that, I'd probably add them using AWB. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 04:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that having it as part of the new nomination template is ideal, though actually implementing it is somewhat harder. The exact categories would need to be added to the instructions or documentation with an explicit list so noms would know what to add. We would also need to change Module:NewDYKnomination and {{ DYKsubpage}} to add and remove the template on creation and close (respectively). It might be worth considering how we might adopt the AfD-style of categorization, but those would be the places to start. — Wug· a·po·des​ 04:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@ Wugapodes: there's no way we could do it without spoonfeeding the entire list of categories to the user? If there isn't, i agree that we should probably consider an AfD style, as long as it gives us WP:Category intersection. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 08:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

In theory, yeah, we could do it without having the entire list, but it's highly unlikely that they will be used effectively. Noms probably won't go digging through category space to find out what categories are valid or not, and more likely just won't categorize. Without a list it will probably wind up that most nominations are categorized by hand anyway in order to fix mistakes and such. — Wug· a·po·des​ 21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

all right, we can give them the list and then we'll fix it by hand when it doesn't work. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Why should we expect people to add categories? I don't see the benefit, and it adds more time to users wanting to nominate DYK noms. For about the millionth time, we should be trying to make DYK less complicated instead of more complicated. Nominations with images are obvious, and biographies seem reasonable obvious by just reading the nomination. So I don't see any value to adding categories. Especially when Wikipedia categorisation in general is an inconsistent mess, so we'd never get a categorisation system done consistently by everyone, ergo the information gained by it will just be wrong and misleading. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

i get the gum-and-wireness of it, so I'm currently doing it on my own user page. However, it really would help with prep set building, and it would help us keep an eye on how many hooks we have from various countries, keep it in balance. Same with bios and images. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 22:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't get why we need to create categories for this, rather just applying common sense. If there looks like there's lots of biographies or US-hooks, apply the already written guidelines on how many, and if there's not lots of them, then don't. We have way too many image nominations (and have done for the last 5 years), so they can't all be used, and people should just live with it. On the occasions I've done prep building, I haven't found it that difficult to get a balanced set using common sense. Tagging every nomination potentially multiple times is extra effort for everyone, unless it can be done by a bot (which could possibly pick up some information from the WikiProjects on the article talkpage). But making more work for every nominator to an already cumbersome process is not the way to encourage people to participate in DYK. If a bot could do the proposed categorisation, then I'd have a lot fewer complaints about it (as it wouldn't be burdening everyone at DYK). Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating some sort of easy system would be a time save for prep building. I have wondered previously while building sets whether this would be possible, so it's nice to see others thinking about the same thing. Tagging country might be useful, but determining country can get a bit fiddly. A bio/non-bio split is much clearer, and could probably be both handled by a simple checkbox on the DYK-helper script and a bot looking at article categories/wikiprojects. CMD ( talk) 02:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Joseph2302 on this one. If somebody wants to have categories that help with prep building, that's fine. But don't make that a burden on those who put a nomination together. It's complicated enough as it is. I ran a workshop the other month on how to nominate at DYK to a mix of users (inexperienced to experienced) and what they had in common was a perception that DYK is too complicated. Once I stepped them through it, they could see that it's not too bad. Some of them are now DYK contributors and that's great to see. I would not want to see that initial hurdle (i.e. a user's first DYK nomination) raised a tad higher. Schwede 66 05:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

fair enough–am I allowed to add categories manually? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 19:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think bio/non-bio would be easier, but it should be fine for countries for me to do it manually theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 19:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The whole process could be run in a semi-automatic way using Listeria bot based on Wikidata. Where manual input would assist in this area in at the Wikidata end. The other thing that I'm unsure about is how the bot would figure out what's currently at DYK as that does not get recorded in Wikidata. You just need somebody who can sort the Listeria bot side of things for you (that's not me, as it's beyond my capabilities). Let me know if you are interested in that. Schwede 66 21:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've been intending to propose something like this for a long time, as I think the method of listing noms by date of nomination is redundant and unhelpful. My idea was to have noms listed by topic area instead of date, much like the GAN page (but with different topic areas, tailored to DYK purposes). I figured we could have a bot run down the nom list and change the background colour of older noms to help people identify those.

Such a scheme would have obvious advantages over that proposed by leekycauldron, such as nominators having to choose a category for their nomination when they nominated. Also, the full nomination would be listed under a topic header instead of date, rather than just being links to a nomination page as in a category. One disadvantage might be that some noms might equally go into a number of different topic areas, but still, I think it would be a lot better to list noms by topic area than by date of nomination. Gatoclass ( talk) 10:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI, the DYK-helper script can be enhanced to perform fully automatic categorization with ORES topics (See WP:AFCS, User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting etc for topic models), should the community want this. Errors are rare but possible – but anyone can change the automated categorisation in such cases. – SD0001 ( talk) 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

We certainly wouldn't need topics as specific as that for DYK - probably at most a dozen or so topic areas, such as "sport", "arts" and so on. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I gotta run, so I'm just jotting down thoughts here

• there should be a user right to promote from prep set to queue, below admin (like AfC reviewer or pending changes reviewer)
• queue promoter rights can only be granted by admins
• would have to demonstrate competence in all areas of DYK (at minimum, 5 DYK credits, 10 nominations reviewed, and 24 hooks promoted)
• i get it if only admins should be able to touch the main page but we're running a shortage of queue promoters
• you wouldn't be able to approve any set you promoted, obviously
• there are lots of active people who would be great at this who can't because they're not admins (eeng, bluemoonset et al.) theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 03:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have not been here in sometime. All of the above seems reasonable. I would only add that the rights be time specified. e.g. as long as they queue promoter is active or renewed annually. Good luck. Ktin ( talk) 03:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This has been proposed before and was rejected by the community. And no I don't believe we are short of queue promoters - the last few times I have tried to promote a set for example, another admin beat me to it. Gatoclass ( talk) 05:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

yeah, i figured i wouldn't be the first to think of it. As for whether we're short, you obviously know better than i do, but i don't think it hurts to have more qualified people. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

more (qualified people), not (more qualified) people theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 05:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Gatoclass, I agree that this isn't going to fly as a proposal: the community won't allow non-admins to be a gateway to the main page. However, we do seem to be running a backlog on the queues page most of the time (for example, right now): when we ping admins, we can get to a point where the backlog no longer shows, but I believe we're showing the backlog message more often than not. Right now, only three queues are filled: Queue 2 was promoted on September 3, Queue 3 on September 6, and Queue 4 on September 7. It's a good thing we're currently at one a day, because if we were still at two a day we'd be fresh out of queues, and at the rate the WikiCup is resulting in new DYK noms this month (at least 33 in the first week thanks to GAN approvals alone) we'll be back to two sets a day before we know it (we're at 109 approved noms only a few days after we dropped to 55). I'm also going to ping other admins, in the hopes of getting us out of the queue backlog state: Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Schwede66, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski. Thank you all very much for whatever you can do to keep as many queues filled as possible. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset: The admins can't even do so much right now—I've been a little out of it, so we only have two filled prep sets for the three empty queues. I'll get on that. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 05:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Theleekycauldron: 4 filled preps now. SL93 ( talk) 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ SL93: thanks—I'll get started on P4 theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 06:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In my view, there is not really a backlog because each day at this hour I consider whether to move a prep set to the queue; if there are three or fewer filled queues, I will move one, and if there are four or more filled queues, I do not. When we move to two sets a day, I and other admins increase our rate of set-promoting. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

P3 and P4 are filled, we're up to 6 filled preps theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

- before anything like this were to happen, you'd need to show me that we have full prep sets all the times, but nothing in queues. That would show me that there are sufficient editors willing to work on DYK (in creating preps), and not enough admins promoting the sets. I don't see that is the case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 07:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking about two hooks currently awaiting approval, with WP:EGGy links to the bolded article: Template:Did you know nominations/Indradi Thanos and Template:Did you know nominations/Why (Yoko Ono song). The suggested EGGy hooks are as follows:

• ... " Why" John Lennon's guitar playing was credited as being better than Jimi Hendrix' and an influence on the Pixies?
• ... that Thanos was involved in the aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars and founded a disco club after retirement?
  • ALT1: ... that Thanos owned a disco club?
  • ALT2: ... that Thanos hunted drug dealers?

On both of these nomination pages, I suggested that the hooks be preserved for April Fools' Day, because of their misleadingness. However, there isn't so much precedent here, other than WP:EGG. And I think there's a legitimate argument that for DYK, WP:EGG should be looser, because WP:Principle of least astonishment doesn't really apply here either. I wanted to open this up to the floor—how rigidly should we apply WP:EGG to DYK in general, and to these two nominations in general?

Options:

1. These hooks are fine, and should definitely go in the last slot
2. These hooks should be preserved for April Fools' Day
3. These hooks shouldn't be allowed, and WP:EGG compliance in hooks should be enforced

Interested to hear what you all think. Courtesy pings to everyone involved in both nominations: @ Schwede66, Victuallers, Rlendog, Maury Markowitz, David Eppstein, Capsulecap, Love and Parting, and Juxlos theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 08:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

They are fine IMO. If it looks like an Easter Egg then don't be surprised to find out that it is made from chocolate. (However Alt1 and Alt2 are not good because they are incomprehensible and not hooky Victuallers ( talk) 09:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the issue of links being WP:EGG in hooks had been discussed in two of my previous nominations,( here and here). I think they should be fine to go in the last slot, if the WP:EGG factor is not a big deal. In this particular case, however, I'll agree with Victuallers, that the ALT hooks are incomprehensible. If we preserve all obvious egg link hooks for April Fools' Day, there will be a lot of them.... – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems like it should be "Why was John Lennon's guitar ...", which also wouldn't make any sense with "Why" being a song.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The hook is worded the way it is because the hook always starts with "Did you know..." So the full hook is actually "Did you know why John Lennon's guitar playing was credited as being better than Jimi Hendrix' and an influence on the Pixies?, which I think does make sense. Rlendog ( talk) 16:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the context.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My two cents: I wouldn't run either hook but for reasons other than EGG. For the first one, I actually think the phrasing is clever. I like that it replaces the typical "...that..." with "...why...". My problem is twofold: first, the article doesn't actually answer the question why this guy John Blaney thinks Lennon's guitar playing was better than Hendrix. Second, Blaney is a Beatles biograher, the publisher of his book is a young, niche publisher, I frankly don't think he's an independent-enough source to include his opinion; he's not an independent music critic, he's a biographer, of course he's gonna say nice things. But now I'm so far afield from the original question asked here, let's move on. For the second hook, I think editors are vastly overestimating how familiar the average reader will be with Thanos, a comic book character. I get that every American/Westerner under a certain age will know who Thanos is and think it's a clever hook, but I don't think most readers fall into that demographic. If you don't know of the comic book character, these hooks aren't hook-y or interesting at all. But I don't think EGG is an issue for either. Given that the first hook mentions Lennon, it's not going to be a huge surprise that "Why" links to the Ono song. And Thanos is the primary topic for "Thanos", so it's not an easter egg to link it. Anyway, you asked for an opinion, you got one: my !vote is Option 4. These hooks shouldn't be allowed, but not because of WP:EGG. Levivich 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

1 or 2 for me. No harm in a bit of fun here and there. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 18:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I thought that the Thanos hooks are fine for AFD (and AFD only), but the "Why" hook doesn't make any sense. I suggest scrapping the "Why" hook. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 02:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Javelin98, Sahaib3005, TheSandDoctor, and SL93: I've moved the title of this page from Lewis Katz Gulfstream Charter Crash to 2014 Bedford Gulfstream IV crash in conformity with the standard naming conventions for aviation accidents, and substituted the new name into the hook. Would a different wording be preferable to the current one? Thanks. —  RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think it looks just fine, Ravenpuff. For others: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 is the direct link -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Ravenpuff: Works for me, thanks! -- User:Javelin98

Template:Did you know nominations/Tag des offenen Denkmals: the event is on Sunday. I know that we are late, but just in case someone or two or three want to work a little miracle not to tell our readers days or weeks later it was 12 September ... Q5. Btw, I have two hooks in Q4, Joe Hill (opera) and Clara Leiser, and both are sort of related to Germany, - perhaps spread a bit? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "sort of related to Germany" is a good enough reason to move one of those hooks from Queue 4, and you were not the primary author on Clara Leiser (who was an American), so having you credited twice in the set, though perhaps not ideal, is not a sufficient reason either. As for the Sunday event, 50 hours from nomination to front page is so short a time that if anyone does try to "work a little miracle", I hope they take extra care with their review of article and hook (and the promoting admin does the same), since the time for double-checks is limited and going straight to Queue 5 means it skips over the people who typically check prep entries before they move to queues. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's all reasonable. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)