Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:17, 28 August 2020 editDavid Eppstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators226,427 edits →Request for admin assistance: r← Previous edit Revision as of 20:19, 28 August 2020 edit undoGuerillero (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators26,451 edits →Nominators should not edit their hooks in Prep or Queue: Replying to Vanamonde93 (using reply-link)Next edit →
Line 641: Line 641:
::It needed to be clear in the instructions somewhere. This makes it straight across the board, and no need to single out any nominator for an agreement on this. Today, it's ], tomorrow it might be someone else just trying to be helpful. I was not involved in any of the background, but I almost promoted that set to Queue as is, but got sidetracked away from DYK and never did it - but it could have been me doing that. I saw the change, but it didn't click in my head, nor did it click about who made the change. You caught this, because it was something you already had knowledge of. But if I had promoted to Queue, and read the entire article first, I would not have known the historical background to catch that. Also, The C of E works on subject matter in a country other than mine, but we could say that about many nominators of DYK.] (]) 18:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC) ::It needed to be clear in the instructions somewhere. This makes it straight across the board, and no need to single out any nominator for an agreement on this. Today, it's ], tomorrow it might be someone else just trying to be helpful. I was not involved in any of the background, but I almost promoted that set to Queue as is, but got sidetracked away from DYK and never did it - but it could have been me doing that. I saw the change, but it didn't click in my head, nor did it click about who made the change. You caught this, because it was something you already had knowledge of. But if I had promoted to Queue, and read the entire article first, I would not have known the historical background to catch that. Also, The C of E works on subject matter in a country other than mine, but we could say that about many nominators of DYK.] (]) 18:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
*While I agree that this should be a general principle, I think it's worth noting that yet again, we are here discussing what is fundamentally a neutrality issue with one of The C of E's hooks. I am quite fed up with this, and I rather suspect I'm not the only one. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC) *While I agree that this should be a general principle, I think it's worth noting that yet again, we are here discussing what is fundamentally a neutrality issue with one of The C of E's hooks. I am quite fed up with this, and I rather suspect I'm not the only one. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
*:{{re|Vanamonde93}} The first thing I noticed is that this was a hook about Northern Ireland by The C of E. --] &#124; ] 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:19, 28 August 2020

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status

There are currently 4 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 13:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 117 minutes ago( )
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives
Index no archives yet (create)

•2011 reform proposals
•2020 RFC LT Solutions


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Excessively late supply of QPQ credits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved. --evrik  22:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed many nominations coming in with QPQ credits still pending. While I understand this is within the rules, I feel there should be a reasonable time limit imposed. We have a huge backlog of nominations, and this exacerbates the problem.

The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Leonie Schroder was rejected for not having a QPQ after four weeks.

Another nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta, has no QPQ credit and it now over five weeks old.

Sorry for being grumpy, but this is getting ridiculous. Flibirigit (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Seven weeks later we finally have a QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Iran gasoline export to Venezuela. Sheesh! Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Flibirigit, if you're concerned about reducing the backlog, you might also want to call for a time limit on QPQs. A few of our nominators submit QPQs that are two or three years old. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
When I review and the qpq is not there, I ping the nominator, and you could do the same. I confess that I often have no time for a qpq when I'm pressed to nominate in time, and later forget. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I do my part and ping nominators and/or leave them talk page messages if they aren't responsive. At times, if nominations are otherwise good to go and are only lacking a QPQ, I donate a QPQ to let them move forward, but it's not appropriate to do this all the time or when significant issues exist and haven't been addressed in a prompt manner. Narutolovehinata5 12:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah Is there any rules against using old QPQs? I often do QPQs when I have time, and use them weeks later. As far as I see it, as long as a QPQ is done, it should't be problem to do it beforehand. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I also stockpile QPQs and use them weeks later. But in response to Flibirigit's observation, I was just adding another angle. Really, if all a nominator has is a QPQ that's several years old, they should be asked to do a more recent one. Yoninah (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I would support some sort of time limit to submit QPQs so long as there is a process that provides a reminder (and perhaps evidence of active editing?). I would also support a limit to old QPQs, although set at months rather than weeks. CMD (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not support the limiting of use of QPQs. I do support a time limit on how long a nomination can languish with a QPQ. --evrik  15:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is probably the wrong place to be carping about this, but I'll indulge myself since I'm still doing a bit of a slow burn over it. I put a substantial amount of time into reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/1876 Prohibition National Convention, which included searching for and finding sources. After all that, the submitter decided to withdraw the DYK nomination, stating that they would rather use their QPQ credit on something else. I felt like I had been taken advantage of. I put in the work to not just review, but improve, somebody else's article, and then they didn't even want to go through with it. Back when I was a fraternity pledge, we had a term for that, but it's too impolite to repeat here. So, while you're working on redoing the QPQ rules, maybe come up with a way to prevent that from happening again? Maybe your QPQ gets consumed not when your submission is approved, but when it's reviewed? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Abandoning a DYK and then attempting to transfer your QPQ to a new nomination doesn't seem fair to me. If it's not explicitly prohibited, it should be.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That's the sort of lawyering that results in the addition of new rules. However in this case it's already covered. If it comes up again, inform them that the rules note QPQs are "For every nomination", not for every successful nomination. Another one will have to be done for a new nomination. CMD (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC on using older reviews as a QPQ

We meed something mentioned in the rules if we are to change this. The QPQ process was developed to help clear backlogs. No time limit was set as to how far back a past review can be used for a QPQ. I have approximately 400 reviews under my belt, most of which I have never used as a QPQ. Realistically, this would defeat the original concept. Let us set a reasonable time limit on when the old reviews can be used for a QPQ. Please express your views below. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Qualifying QPQs need to be real reviews, not just a checkmark comment like "This is good to go".
  • Two years or older time limit
  • One-year time limit
  • Six-month time limit
  • No time limit at all
  • Other

Discussion on using older reviews as a QPQ

RFC on a time limit to supply a QPQ

Currently the DYK rules do not state any time limit to supply a QPQ credit. As per the conversation above, I feel that too many nominations are taking an excessively long time to do this, and it exacerbates the backlog. I suggest the following options. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • QPQ must be supplied at time of nomination
  • QPQ must be supplied within one week of nomination
  • Support as possibly the best option. One week is the time limit to nominate an article when it was created/expanded, and I feel most reviews can be completed within a week at most. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support--evrik  20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support Nominators can be issued a warning notification at at least a week (whenever a reviewer looks at it), after which a week seems a reasonable timeframe to expect a QPQ if they have actively edited. CMD (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What about multiple nom hooks? Users still sometimes submit hooks with five or more nominations, is a week a long enough period for such noms? Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a week is a fair enough time to expect someone to do a QPQ. Given we get 1 week to nominate the article, that effectively gives up to 2 weeks to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not a big DYK contributor. I think I've done 8 in my 15 years here. Looking over them, it looks like (other than the first couple of freebies), I supplied a QPQ with the submission about half the time, and the other half I marked it "pending" then followed up in a day or two. I find the submission process cumbersome (lots of fidgety multi-step template editing), so I perceive being forced to do the review at submission time as a burden. But, a week is plenty of time. Maybe even something shorter like 72 hours. I'd also love to see some kind of automation to make the submission and review processes easier. If the mechanical work of submitting and reviewing were easier, I'd be more inclined to support requiring QPQ done at submission time. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gatoclass --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's nice when we can review noms as they come up on the noms page and not have to wait for a QPQ to approve them. Regarding multiple noms, we may offer a 2-week time limit. But there should be a time limit. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This seems reasonable. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I could support this on paper, however we recently had a discussion about a similar proposal about unresponsive nominators. Sometimes nominators are unable to do QPQ reviews due to a lack of time or due to unavailability, and one week may actually be a short amount of time for many people. Instead of an outright fail after one week, I could instead support some kind of notice or warning after one week, with rejection only happening if they haven't responded again for about another week or so. In addition, there should probably be some kind of change to the guidelines making the QPQ exemption for new nominators more visible in some form. Many QPQ-exempt editors do not mention their exemption during their nomination, which can make things confusing considering even reviews are backlogged to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 22:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support reasonable as it is consistent with the spirit of DYK highlighting "new" material. Noms are often held up for weeks or months even over content/hook issues. We should not allow further delay that can easily be avoided. MB 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support if it's not a hard rule and with the possibility of exceptions if the nominator requests an extension in good faith. As Narutolovehinata5 points out, many people simply don't have time to do it within a week if real life is busy and they should not be punished for it. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as second option. This is less bad than having to supply a QPQ immediately, and can even be a good compromise. But it's still limiting, especially in cases of unresponsive nominators. And it doesn't really solve the problem of QPQ backlogs, it just changes when the QPQ review is done. I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that we could give warnings or notices after a week, since I am one of these people who are busy in real life. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too restrictive - why not 2-4 weeks. It's actually good to force reviewers to looik higher up the queue, and changing that is more likely to increase the backlog. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There should be a reasonable time limit, otherwise someone reviewing the nom has to delay, or come back again later increasing the review effort. I think we can allow some delay, but don't put it off too much. Otherwise if any delay is acceptable when can a nomination be failed for no QPQ? If someone cannot do their reviews within a week, they should be putting in less nominations themselves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support in that if the QPQ has not been completed in a week's time, a notice that the QPQ is needed (not an outright failure) should be placed on the nomination, and the nominator allowed another seven days. If they haven't done it after the extension (and haven't engaged with the reviewer), then I think a failure is justified at that point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Second choice compared to status quo. feminist (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support per BlueMoonset. I've forgotten about DYK noms before, so the reminder after a week is reasonable. If the nominator is still unresponsive at the point, fail it, some effort is required. Hog Farm Bacon 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support I suggest one to two weeks. Nominations are constantly at a backlog, which should not be held up by irresponsible undone QPQs. Also, nominators should be pinged with QPQ checks at least once. Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 10:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessarily restrictive, especially for those still learning the ropes. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • QPQ can be supplied whenever/status quo
  • QPQ timeline exception can be eased in special circumstances for multiple-hook nominations, or multiple nominations for special occasion events, such as Christmas

Discussion on a time limit to supply a QPQ

If it was a few cases I don't think this would have been raised as an issue, but quite a few do seem to languish unattended and uncompleted. There may be a more creative way to deal with this issue than the blunt options discussed above, which is why I supported a more flexible timeframe than the strict limit. If the issue is the backlog, perhaps there's a way to have a bot automatically detect missing QPQs, and send the reminders, or a way to have a bot mark them in some obvious manner so that reviewers can simply skim pass over them until a QPQ is actually done (ie. until the nomination is actually complete and ready to review). CMD (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Returning to this, I think enforcing very quick QPQs is likely to make noms that are less attractive to reviewers, for whatever reason, take even longer to get one (as most reviewers want to see a QPQ before they start). Thus it may make the back of the backlog worse. I'm rather puzzled by the votes so far - reviews from up to 2 years ago can be used, but new ones must be done within a week. I often do reviews and never claim them as QPQ unless I have a nom on; then I do a "fresh" one. If those limits became policy I would start to "hoard" them, and so do fewer reviews overall. This doesn't seem to be the intention of these proposals, but it might be the effect. Johnbod (talk)
  • Comment on special occasions set aside for an entire set or two. The editors most likely to understand this without an explanation, are the ones who have been around to do the writing and promotions. There are some occasions where there's only one or two or three editors/admins to carry it off. Christmas is often a mad scramble to get it together. DYK is then lacking its reliable regulars who do the heavy lifting - last-minute nominations, while some nominators hurriedly scurry to come up with the necessary QPQs. And hope there are promoters around. If they don't readily have the QPQs, they have to quickly take care of that. Aside from Christmas, the 2016 Star Trek 50th anniversary also comes to mind. To my memory, all (or almost all) the nominations came from one dedicated Star Trek fan. That was a ton of writing, while also having enough reviews in the wings for QPQs on every hook. There have been other similar events. Having a little leeway on the QPQ timeline for the full-set special occasions, benefits DYK. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Personally, the procedure for nominating an article starts with my doing a review. And when considering what article to review, I actively select articles where the QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned earlier, rather than an outright fail after one week without a QPQ, I would support a more flexible timeframe where a notice could be given after one week then the nomination would only be failed if there's no response after a certain amount of time after that (about a week or so, for example). Even then, in certain cases where the QPQ is the only thing that's missing and every other criterion is met, reviewers or commenters could at their discretion donate a QPQ to allow the nomination to move forward. Narutolovehinata5 01:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Siddhantasara is now two weeks old without a QPQ being supplied. Nominator has been reminded. Flibirigit (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't read this entire thing so apologies if this has already been considered. Could we just require a QPQ be provided within a week of start of review? That would let reviewers open the review, mark it started, ping the nom, and not do any further work until the QPQ is provided. That keeps the reviewer from wasting time doing a review that's been abandoned. It prevents other reviewers from doing the review (instead of moving on to a review that already does have a QPQ). If after a month there's still no QPQ, fail the nomination. —valereee (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary

  • I think this summarizes the consensus:
Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark." Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete." QPQs do not expire and may be used at any time for a DYK nomination.
Agreed? --evrik  04:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd not !voted so I could maybe summarize, and I agree with this - though I do think there is enough support for "ping the nominator if there isn't a QPQ" to explicitly include that, so there's no future arguments over a nominator arguing they weren't. Kingsif (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
(Having !voted) I agree with the interpretation of the review requirement discussion (although we don't have a mechanism to check this at the moment) and the QPQ expiry discussion, but agree with Kingsif that a strict "within a week" consensus was not strong, given the comments in that section and given the strong support in the section explicitly calling for exceptions. CMD (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark." Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete." QPQs do not expire and may be used at any time for a future DYK nomination.

Agreed? --evrik  17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fort Trump

Regarding Prep 6 - What is our policy regarding days before an election, when we won't put a candidate's name on the main page? Either DYK has a rule about that, or the Main Page people do. Name placement, is name placement, no matter how its framed. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:DYKHOOK, Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. Flibirigit (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on this. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chetsford, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and Piotrus: Fort Trump needs to be pulled. I have nominated this at AFD. WP:NOTNEWS The article is about something that does not exist. There is no Fort Trump. It's a discussion that's been going on since 2019, but not much else. All this article tells us is a recap of the various ideas that have been floated since 2019. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: well I've pulled it, since the AFD has been started, but with all due respect it seems a rather far-fetched AFD nom to me. The "Fort Trump" concept is very well attested in sources, and there is no requirement for an entity to actually exist for it to have an article - we discuss hypothetical projects which were never realised all the time. I find it highly unlikely the AFD will result in a deletion, but who knows! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru Well, OK, thanks for doing that. As for the rest ... it will all come out in the wash at AFD, either direction. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep, it certainly will. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
After AfD is resolved, assuming it is kept, the DYK should be restored to the queue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The above question about name dropping during an election as per WP:DYKHOOK will then need to be discussed. Flibirigit (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chetsford, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Piotrus, and Flibirigit: AFD Fort Trump closed as "no consensus", so do whatever you do in those situations. — Maile (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The easiest solution is to just schedule this for appearance on the main page after election day, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Election day is November 3, so we can schedule it for, say, November 5. BD2412 T 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. No objection here. Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of a preponderance of caution, I wouldn't object to even holding it until December, after the Electoral College votes. I'm not passionate about any date, however, so will defer to whatever the Queue Lords decide. Chetsford (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm also thinking that the election results could drag out long after the election; we could even have a court case as in the 2000 United States presidential election. Why can't we run it right now? And the hook is not about the U.S., but about Poland. Yoninah (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Because featuring a hook that uses the candidate's name, is name placement during an election. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The election is more than 30 days away. Yoninah (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever you decide, Yoninah. (I don't have this discussion watchlisted so ping me if my further input is desired but I'm generally agnostic about the date.) Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The higher consideration for the encyclopedia is avoiding the appearance of impropriety, irrespective of a set number of days. However, I don't think it's necessary to wait until the Electoral College meets in December, as the campaign to the general public will be over by election day (though in some past elections, polling places have been held open for extended hours technically running into the next day, so I would give a day for that). Since the point of a DYK is to promote Misplaced Pages content rather than to promote an outside interest, that is all that should matter. In fact, the topic may draw even more interest in the days right after the election than it would now. BD2412 T 23:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. So as not to disrupt the queues, I'm going to be bold and swap it into Prep 4 for a run date of August 30. It survived the AFD and has been waiting long enough. Yoninah (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Maile, if you think it should run even earlier, please move it up into one of the queues. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah I'm not going to move it. But for future reference, after all the 2020 dust has cleared, I think the election date discussion should resume. On a neutral basis not related to any one hook. Our world has changed forever with the pandemic, and DYK probably needs to make some adjustments here and there. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I've pulled the promotion and reopened the nomination, because Yoninah simply cannot promote her own hook to prep, and ALT2 (the best of the bunch) was hers. I'm also not willing to promote it myself, since I favor holding it until after the election, but I left the space open in Prep 4 rather than revert the move that made room for it in case others disagree. Someone should really supersede the slash icon with a tick icon before promotion; it looks very odd to promote a nomination where a tick is not the final icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's just wait until the election, and no harm in getting another person to review the nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I gave it another review a couple of hours ago, and noted there that it seems it would be more viable to run it ASAP rather than wait. Kingsif (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ever since I put this up at the now-closed as "no consensus" AFD, I've wondered what the conversation would be here if the article/hook was based on Joe Biden and - just to pick a name out of a hat - Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced of Puerto Rico holding a news conference where the governor blurted out, "We would like a new United States military base built in Puerto Rico and named Biden Air Force Base". After all, win or lose this election, he has been the Vice President. And as the nominee, he's within his rights to start consulting world leaders. Biden chuckles and says, "You'll have to ask Congress". Someone checks the financial feasibility of it, and the idea is dropped. But someone at Misplaced Pages writes an article named Biden Air Force Base as though the proposal alone was notable, even though the base does not exist, and nominates it at DYK. Would there be any objections here to putting that on the main page this close to the election? — Maile (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Given the discussion below, I think posting in August would be widely accepted. However, it should have a better hook. The name was incentive to get a military base in Poland, whereas the hook seems to imply the idea is more to honour Trump. CMD (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Maile, we have a huge and diverse readership. Even people who live in the U.S. don't care about the election. And the article is about a nod to a sitting president. I think you should let this one go already. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if the hook had been about Biden, Sanders, or any other candidate, such a hook would probably be controversial too. Narutolovehinata5 01:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
So where are we holding with this? If it's going to be run after the November 3 election, along with all the Kanye West hooks that keep popping up, we'll need to file it in a new section under Special Occasions hooks. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 voting dates in the US for the upcoming Presidential election

WP:DYKHOOK, Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates

Does DYK calculate "before an election", by the first date a voter casts a ballot? If our policy is designed to be neutral and not give Main Page space to candidates, then we need to take into consideration that voting is no longer a process where everybody shows up on the same day and votes at the polls. I contend that the American presidential election actually begins in September - when voters begin casting ballots in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming - and ends on the official "election day" of November 3. Please see below. — Maile (talk)

Early voting by state

The earliest dates for election voting I see here are 46 days ahead of Nov 3, and 45 days ahead of Nov 3. That would mean in effect that their Presidential elections start around September 17 - 29.

  • Alabama - none listed
  • Alaska - 15 days before the election
  • Arizona - 27 days before the election
  • Arkansas - 15 days before the election
  • California - 29 days before the election
  • Colorado - N/A
  • Connecticut - N/A
  • Delaware - N/A
  • District of Columbia - N/A
  • Florida - At least 10 days before the election. Varies by county.
  • Georgia - October 5 - the fourth Monday before the election.
  • Hawaii - all mail-in voting starting 2020.
  • Idaho - On or before the third Monday before the election
  • Illinois - 40 days before the election.
  • Indiana - 28 days before the election.
  • Iowa - 29 days before the election (in-person absentee voting).
  • Kansas - Up to 20 days before the election.
  • Kentucky- N/A
  • Louisiana - 14 days before the election.
  • Maine - 30 days before the election
  • Maryland - The second Thursday before the election.
  • Massachusetts - 11 days before the election
  • Michigan - 45 days before the election
  • Minnesota - 46 days before the election
  • Mississippi- N/A
  • Missouri- N/A
  • Montana - 30 days before the election (in-person absentee voting).
  • Nebraska - 30 days before the election.
  • Nevada - 17 days before the election.
  • New Hampshire- N/A
  • New Jersey - 45 days before the election
  • New Mexico - 28 days before the election
  • New York - 10 days before the election
  • North Carolina - 19 days before the election
  • North Dakota - At least 15 days before the election. Varies by county
  • Ohio - 28 days before the election
  • Oklahoma - 5 days before the election
  • Oregon- N/A
  • Pennsylvania - Varies by county. Counties may make mail ballots available to voters in person up to 50 days before Election Day.
  • Rhode Island - N/A
  • South Carolina - N/A
  • South Dakota - 46 days before the election
  • Tennessee - 20 days before the election
  • Texas - 22 days before the election.
  • Utah - 14 days before the election
  • Vermont - 45 days before the election
  • Virginia - 45 days before the election
  • Washington - 18 days before the election.
  • West Virginia - 13 days before the election
  • Wisconsin - At least 14 days before the election
  • Wyoming - 45 days before the election


I understand what you are getting at, but I would still do 30 days before November 3 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution and knowing the current US political environment, I would suggest simply not running any 2020 U.S. election hooks, especially if they name a candidate, until after November 3 (and potentially even until January). Narutolovehinata5 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: 30 days before November 3, several states will have already voted, either wholly or partially (depending on the urgency deemed by the voters). So for those voters, we will be closing the barn door weeks after the horse got out. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking about this the other day as I created a Puerto Rico hook that is in the upcoming queue (no names and shouldn't be an issue). American election campaigns are unusual in their sheer length, so I would agree with extending the purdah here. Perhaps 3 September would be a simple to implement cut-off date. CMD (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a case of a DYK guideline that simply hasn't kept up with the times. When it was set, there wasn't much in the way of early voting, and mail-in voting was only a major thing in a few states. By now, early voting has become much more prevalent, and mail-in voting is going to be a huge factor. Under these circumstances, 30 days before November 3 will not be sufficient, because we'll be having hooks on the main page during the election period. With people early voting in mid-September, we don't want someone to be affected by a hook just before heading out to cast their ballot. I think CMD's suggestion of September 3, or making it an even September 1 (nothing after the end of August), makes sense this year. We can always hold hooks until after the end of the election cycle. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that thirty days before the day of the election is a good guideline. --evrik  16:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with BlueMoonset and Chipmunkdavis that we should move our cut-off date to possibly September 1 or 3. "Day of the election" is the first date an eligible voter casts a vote, which is mid-September. November 3 is now the last chance to vote date. — Maile (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested re-wording of the DYK guideline

Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before the first voting date in an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates.

@BlueMoonset, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: or any other promoter interested in this. I've given a slight re-wording of the DYK guideline, by inserting "before the first voting date" to keep the change at a minimal. We need to fix the current gap in wording, not only for the current American election, but because in the global world, rapid communication changes are happening. We need to keep up with the times. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think we should stick with the election day, and not the start of voting. --evrik  18:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per evrik. We will drive ourselves crazy finding out where early voting takes place in every district every year, not just in the U.S. but everywhere. And for what? So someone in North Carolina won't be influenced by a DYK hook on the day they can vote? Thirty days before an election has always been our rule of thumb. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Yoninah --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The 30 day before election rule is sensible, but there's no need to go crazy over this. The US election cycle seems to begin 2 years before the polling day so we're never going to fully inoculate against the outside chance of influencing voters, but if we keep it sensible then we've done our best.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It is hard to look up the first day of voting for every election, and 30 days before elections works for a lot of countries. However, we can make individual extensions if agreed, not only to reduce the chance of influencing voters, but also I would suggest to reduce the chance editors here will have to spend a lot of time dealing with a heated issue. CMD (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You bring up a good point. The only reason we know about the above early voting states in this election, is because I posted them above. And they will surely change four years from now. Maybe it would be easier in this one circumstance, to agree to make Sept 1 (or close to that date) as the cut-off for this year's USA Presidential election, and deal with future elections as they evolve. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Valereee you and I, and possibly BlueMoonset are in the minority in the here and now on this. I do believe that at some point in the future, sooner rather than later, DYK has to rethink how it handles this issue. I regularly work CAT:CSD and WP:AIV, where it is evident that the rest of the world often thinks of Misplaced Pages as a free advertising site. Even to the point of seeing Misplaced Pages like Facebook or Youtube. Lots of resumes and corporate ads. And as I got into editing talk pages etc. of current events articles, it has sometimes been eye opening in how there are repeated attempts to skew content to one slant or another. Add to that, the above thread by Yoninah regarding Kanye West. DYK is in need of a rethinking on it's being a loophole for free main page political name placement. — Maile (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think let's be honest here, no-one's going to change the way they vote just because they saw a DYK hook on a candidate 29 days before the election. (As much as we'd like to think we do), we don't have that sort of power and influence. That being said, I think the 30 day rule is a good idea to prevent the project as a whole being accused of any sort of bias. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose My recollection is that this rule was put in place after a series of highly contentious hooks related to the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth campaign during the 2008 US presidential election. That it might not be so easy to determine if a hook was related to an election was not overlooked. I thought that the 30 day rule was a reasonable compromise although in practice it has proved easy to gum up contentious DYK hooks for months on end. As Yoniah points out, implementation of the proposal is impractical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Back to one set per day

Note: A permalink to the original discussion can be found at the bottom of the Archive Box to the right on this page. There you will find this link: RFC LT Solutions 2020. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We are now at 55 approved nominations. I recall that below 60 approved nominations would trigger a revert to one set per day. Flibirigit (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a somewhat distorted position. At the moment six queues (48 hooks) are filled and seven prep sets (56 hooks). Add these to the 51 currently approved hooks and you get 155 hooks, all ready to go. The greatest need, in my opinion, is a reduction in the number of unapproved hooks, currently standing at 113. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed what Cwmhiraeth is saying. Let's try to finish up 50 to 60 more reviews, and then we can go to once a day. Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but this is not an optional or fungible number. Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, while I understand and even sympathize with the arguments, the RfC set the number of approved and unpromoted nominations as the guidepost we use. We've dropped below 60 and it's been noticed, so we go back to one set daily effective midnight tonight (UTC), which means changing the time between sets after the midnight set is promoted. Since July 11, when we switched over to two a day, the number of unapproved nominations has dropped from 219 to 113, which is pretty good progress; we've also cut the number of total nominations by more than half, from 339 to 168. I'm sure the admin promoters will welcome a respite from two promotions a day until we build back to 100 120 approved. I'll take a look and see what special occasion hooks need to be swapped between sets for the one-a-day schedule. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support change the RFC was clear: when up to 120, go to 2 sets per day, and when down to 60, go to 1 set per day. We've applied the 2 sets per day rule without exception, so should apply the 1 set per day rule likewise. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – given that there are now 66 approved noms and all prep areas are filled. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, does anyone have the RfC link? When I first noticed there being two hooks per day, it occurred to me that one fairly radical way of putting the reader first would be to keep the hooks at one per day but just reject the less interesting ones. I doubt that'll ever happen since editor-over-reader bias and status quo bias are both potent forces, and there would be valid concerns over editors getting mad enough at their rejected DYK that it damages editor retention. But I do think we need to do something to address the number of just plain uninteresting DYK hooks that get through, and this would be one way to do it. (Remember that readers don't know DYKs are drawn from a very limited set of pages, so when they see uninteresting ones, their reaction is "out of all the possible fun facts on Misplaced Pages, this is the one you chose?!") {{u|Sdkb}}  19:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    What's interesting to some, may be not interesting to others, and the wider the variety, the better you serve a wide range of readers. I'm afraid the first hooks rejected would be niche articles, - so exactly those which have some rarity value. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, that could be a concern. To get a little more concrete about the problem I see, take for example the second hook live right now, ... that Helen Ballard was a hellebore horticulturist?. That's literally just stating her occupation, with nothing else hooky about it. Perhaps there's something more interesting in the article itself or perhaps not, but either way, we have a problem on our hands when hooks like that are passing on a regular basis. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if boring hooks regularly get through, but that hook really is incredibly boring. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hey ... different strokes for different folks. As an editor totally uninvolved with the Helen Ballard hook ... I thought it was really cute. Border line alliteration was how I perceived the intent of the wording of that hook. Bet you can't say it ten times real fast. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    More alliteration would certainly liven up DYK. Anyway, in my mind DYK is still six hooks four times a day. The current situation in comparison gives each hook a much longer life. CMD (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    The best way to counter "boring" hooks would be to go and review. I have been criticized for opera singers' hooks that are not interesting. Look at today's (which would have been yesterday's with 12 hour sets, but yes, in principle I prefer all day) about Bernard Ładysz, who recently died, mentioning Krzysztof Penderecki, same, - people who have never heard those names may find it boring, for others it's a memorial. Today's featured list is also about opera, DYK? That one is a tribute to Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin changes needed

The following special occasion hooks and their credits will need to be moved:

  • Queue 4: "The Delectable Negro" hook needs to move to Queue 2 (August 21)
  • Prep 1: "Ludwig Hoelscher" hook needs to move to Queue 4 (August 23)—it could go in the spot vacated by "The Delectable Negro")
  • Since we need to displace a hook in Queue 2, it could be put in the spot vacated in Prep 1, making this a three-way shift

So far as I could see, these are the only two special occasion hooks currently promoted. If anyone notices another that wasn't tagged with a "special" comment in a queue or prep, it will also need shifting.

After the midnight promotion of Queue 1 to the main page (and not before!): please change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 (this sets the promotion interval to daily from twice a day)

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to make these changes in about 11 hours time unless anyone else has done them first. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Wugapodes, and thanks to Cwmhiraeth for offering. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7:Swedish textiles

@MartinPoulter:@Chipmunkdavis:@Vincent60030:
A lot of good hooks were suggested during the review, but this one has to be the most uninspiring lead hook IMO. "Flatweaves" isn't even linked. If this is really the choice, I would move it out of the image slot. The Squirrel Conspiracy's ALT1 and ALT2 were far better for a lead image:
ALT1 ... that many of the works in the Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles (example pictured) were created by women, who wove in symbolic decorations to demonstrate their skills ahead of marriage?
ALT2 ... that Nasser Khalili assembled the Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles (example pictured) because he felt art historians undervalued works by anonymous creators?
Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Ah I may have been unfamiliar with the promotion process as I do not know that we may opt for another hook instead of what the reviewer suggested. This is definitely a difficult pick between 1 and 2. Let's go with ALT2. Thank you for bringing this up. :D Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
No, usually the promoter does promote the approved hook, but if he feels it's not hooky enough he should reopen the discussion. In other cases, as this one, the hook is posted and then other editors comment on its hookiness here at WT:DYK. Let's not rush to change it; let's wait for the nominator to weigh in. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer that it remains in the image slot because I like to encourage GLAM/WIR efforts, but as I proposed the alternate hooks, I don't want to get further "involved". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
AGFing on offline sources, all of the hooks suggested within the discussion seemed accurate to the article. I noted ALT4 as the nominator preference, and don't see it as significantly less hooky than the various other ALTs suggested (except ALT0), but I also have no issues with the others. I believe it should stay in the image slot though, being an attractive and high-quality image. CMD (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree it should stay in the image slot. I'm going ahead and substituting ALT2, which is AGF and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7 Gorkha Bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion shifted to Template:Did you know nominations/Gorkha Bridge CMD (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gorkha Bridge should not have been approved or promoted. The article still has issues with copyediting and source fidelity. @Evrik, Spinningspark, and SL93:@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: CMD (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The two paragraphs in the body of this work have seven sources. I think this article is okay. --evrik  04:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I promoted it because I was going to complete a copy edit afterwords, which is now completed. I will let others discuss the sources. SL93 (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I fixed the sourcing issues. Everything is in the provided sources, but some of them were put in incorrectly. SL93 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I know the fact exists, the problem is it wasn't in the source cited. The simple existence of sources doesn't qualify as good inline citation. CMD (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Driveby comment: I personally do not find the hook that interesting but am unsure if that is a major concern at this stage. :/ I mean restoring a popular trail is normal but reconnecting seven villages may be notable I suppose. However, I find that being built by Swiss engineers and local residents and by drilling into a cliff is more interesting. Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 09:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Chipmunkdavis Ignoring the interesting issue which I don't think is actually an issue, is the sourcing issue considered to be taken care of now? SL93 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • One of the sources for this article, which was created in July 2020, says it was accessed in January 2013. None of the 3 sources cited say the project costs 6.1 million (although one mentions this figure as a wage, which I assume is how it got onto the page). The next sentence of the article gives an entirely different figure, which is supported by one of the two sources it is sourced to, the other one giving a slightly different figure. (Other sources give different figures again, which is not reflected anywhere in the article.) The article attributes a quote to the District Development Committee when that may simply be the wording of the news article writer. The article cited for Chumchet doesn't mention Chumchet, and the Chumchet Misplaced Pages article says it is a village in the valley, which is the opposite of what the article suggests. There is some very close paraphrasing, and a clear need for more copyediting.
      • Why is there a push to get this through? The original nominator has not commented on the page at all since nomination. Please pull it from the queue until its issues are properly addressed. CMD (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Chipmunkdavis If my intention was just to push the nomination through, I would have never asked for your response. I was planning on pulling it depending on your response. It is pulled now. SL93 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Apologies SL93, I was not directing it at you. It was just a bit frustrating that after I pointed out issues in the nomination page it somehow seemed to gain a momentum of its own and made it quickly to approval and then prep without the issues being addressed or the nominators invovlement. CMD (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice to hear from the nominator on the DYK nomination. I let them know that I reopened the nomination. SL93 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today with only two entries remaining, so here is an updated list. Reviewers have been active, so there are only 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the latest date in that section, August 13. We currently have a total of 185 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 99. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and those in the Current nominations section as well.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Some context given the QPQ RfC above: at the moment 3 of these entries lack QPQs (although it has not been a week since they were nominated), and only two use QPQs that are months/years old. CMD (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Additional:

Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 12:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

How to add image to already existing DYK?

I want to add this image to Template:Did you know nominations/Matchstick Marvels Museum, but I'm not sure how to do it correctly. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I did for you, but you will have to replace caption by what you want to say. - I do it like this: I go to any nom with a pic, copy from there, and replace the file name, - easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do it that way in the future. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Q3 29Aug

Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Robertson Berrey

SL93, when I read 'helped reduce the leprosy population' it read to me like maybe she'd killed them off or sent them somewhere. :) I think the article is saying she provided medical care which reduced the incidence of leprosy, which obviously would result in a smaller number of people with leprosy? I can't get to the source to verify, would this tweak be accurate?

ALT0a:* ... that as a medical missionary, pediatrician Ruth Robertson Berrey helped reduce Nigeria's incidence of leprosy? —valereee (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Oh, I didn’t think of people coming to that conclusion. The new tweak works well. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Main Page

I have started a discussion at Talk:Main Page#that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that which may be of interest to editors here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

So people know what this is about without having to click on the link to find out, C&C proposes removing the initial "that" from DYK hooks, and changing the header for the section to "Did you know that ...". BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West song hooks

@Maile66: We have a lot of Kanye West song hooks lately. Isn't he a candidate in the 2020 United States presidential election? When should we stop running these hooks? Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah Is this a trick question? :-) I was just getting used to taking your advice in the other above section, and throw in the towels on my perspective therein. However, you are correct. Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Wow - and we ran a hook on his campaign earlier this month. I don't know much about his campaign, but when he opened his campaign, the media chatter was that he was a spoiler candidate to take the general election votes away from the Democratic front runner (notice how I didn't name the front runner). Anybody have thoughts on this? Should we place a moratorium on hooks about the 3rd party candidate, on or about the same as we suspend hooks about the others? Whenever that is. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently one in a prep I did (it's Prep 2 I think). If it is a bit too overwhelming to have his hooks for a while, we can put the reviews for new ones on hold, with the current in Prep 2 remaining if that's okay. Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 05:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There has been no support for extending the election purdah this far. If they go up in September and October there might be an issue, but if it's in prep now that seems fine. CMD (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4

  • ... that Chopin's mother was his first music teacher, but his knowledge surpassed hers before he was seven? Source: "He quickly exhausted all the guidance his mother and sister could give him, and before he was seven his musical development was entrusted to an acquaintance of his father's"

I'm not happy about this hook. It was Chopin's musical ability rather than his knowledge that surpassed his mother's, and his first instructor seems to have been his sister (three years his senior) rather than his mother. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah:, @Amkgp:, @Piotrus: and @SusunW: courtesy pings. Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 07:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Could make it "first adult music teacher". Not sure about the second issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a trite point, but wouldn't the hook be better if it was about her rather than about her son? CMD (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
CMD, I can't find much to say about her personally, and her name is rather unwieldy so I piped it. What about:
ALT1: ... that Chopin's mother and sister were his first music teachers, but his musical ability surpassed theirs before he was seven? Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 gets over the problems I had with the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Children play "school". My own sister came home every day and taught me what she had learned. It's part of the educational process that happens with siblings. Krzyżanowska taught her older daughter who in turn taught her brother what she knew. Ludwika was a child and not a trained musician. According to the source, her piano lessons were part of a "game" the siblings played.p 22 Krzyżanowska was his first true teacher. SusunW (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I may have to trouble you to fix an error I made with the ce in Queue 4 Cwmhiraeth. This one. Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 15:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That one is sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3

I approved Template:Did you know nominations/2channel and it is now in prep 3, but now I'm thinking it might be a negative BLP issue despite the "claimed" part of the hook. Pinging Psiĥedelisto and Amkgp. SL93 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: Are you concerned about the sourcing? I thought it was pretty bulletproof. The owner of 4chan, one of the biggest websites in the world, claiming his last website, biggest forum in Japan, was stolen by him by someone widely suspected to be QAnon (see also , a source not in that article where journalist Adrienne LeFranc repeats this suspicion, the only person she says by name could be Q) is very notable and hooky. The rules state that we must not violate BLP. They don't state that we can't write about living people in DYK. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Psiĥedelisto I never said that we can’t write about living people on the main page (strange conclusion in my opinion) and I never mentioned the sourcing (which I said was fine in my approval). I’m thinking that there might be a potential issue because DYK tends to stay away from negative hooks mentioning living people because they are going on the main page. Let’s just let others respond. SL93 (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
From WP:DYK - “Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.“ SL93 (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: Well, I don't think it's undue, given how famous both men, their websites, and the event itself is, especially in Japan, but of course be aware of my COI - I made and disavowed 8chan as my userpage states. I added another source wihch summarizes the event, Beran (2019). I learned about it recently when I was working on 420chan, but forgot to add it it seems. I understand that we wouldn't want to highlight a random domain theft allegation on the homepage, but this isn't that due to its high profile, in my humble opinion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The hook includes the name of an individual without an article, which is something that is avoided on DYK, and so needs to be changed on that basis. Irrespective of the sourcing, I agree with SL93 that it gives of the very strong appearance of WP:COATRACKing to those who are less familiar with the history behind the event, or less familiar with noticeboards and the Xchans in general. CMD (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I'd be OK with cutting "by 8chan owner Jim Watkins". Obviously it's inappropriate for me to write an article about Watkins, as much as I might be able to do a good job. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 07:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that part could be replaced by something like "and set up a mirror of the original site in response" or similar. I believe this would address the issue, if that topic is maintained for the hook. Incidentally, I note the article doesn't meet WP:LEAD requirements, as information in the lead isn't present in the article body. For example, it would be good to have the lead details of the traffic post-split in the relevant part of the article. CMD (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Lead concern has been remedied; and I added an ALT2 hook. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@SL93, Psiĥedelisto, and Chipmunkdavis: Template:Did you know nominations/2channel has been moved back to WP:DYKNA ~ Amkgp 💬 08:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Amkgp, as it needs further review, it belongs on WP:DYKN, so I've moved it there. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4:Italian dish

  • ... that although nowadays the neccio (pictured) is considered a dessert, peasants used to eat it with salty food?
@Alessandro57:@Al Ameer son:@Amkgp:
Why is this being referred to as the neccio? The article seems heavily based on Italian and though in Italian it may be referred to as il neccio, it probably should be referred to as neccio in English. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's OK. Replace neccio with "muffin" or "pancake" (probably the closest equivalent) and one would still use "the" IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
No, I think one would use plural "muffins/pancakes" (with "are", and "them"). Replacing "the neccio" with "necci" would achieve the same here. Bazza (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
We could use necci in the hook, because that goes with the image of the multiple necci. But what about the article? Our Muffin article starts A muffin is.... Shouldn't this start A neccio is..., and replace "the" with "a" throughout the article? Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, I edited the article. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on the article, it is consistently labelled without an article, so I'm kinda on the fence about this, but it wouldn't be too much of an issue to use a instead of the imo. Vincent (talk) (Kenton!) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The article uses "the necci" twice, which would work if you were saying "the muffins". Loanword plurals aren't consistent, I think the hook would work with "a neccio" or "necci", and could see someone saying simply "neccio", but I don't think "the neccio" would be used in English. CMD (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I edited the article some more. I think the hook works now. Yoninah (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Image

Regarding Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 and Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Goonewardene.

The image wasn't approved as much as the deletion request was sent back for more refinement, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/07/15#Files uploaded by SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk_·_contribs). I think we should rethink the image selection. --evrik  16:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But the image also has to be correctly licensed in the article. I'm returning the nomination to WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote Queue 7 to main page; bot is down

Queue 7 was supposed to be promoted to the main page at 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC), but the bot appears to be down and didn't do the promotion at the scheduled time. I have pinged DYKUpdateBot owner Shubinator's talk page, but in the meantime we need to have an admin do a manual promotion of the queue to the main page.

The instructions on how to do the promotion are at the bottom of the queue page (or any queue or prep page). Pinging admins @Casliber:, @Amakuru:, @Vanamonde93:, @Maile66:, @Guerillero:, @Valereee:, @Wugapodes:, @Lee Vilenski:, and @Gatoclass:. Please do not undertake this unless you can do at least the first five steps in quick succession (though hopefully you'll be able to do them all)—doing fewer leaves things in an unsafe state. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonset (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy resending pings since statement above was not signed. Pinging admins @Casliber:, @Amakuru:, @Vanamonde93:, @Maile66:, @Guerillero:, @Valereee:, @Wugapodes:, @Lee Vilenski:, and @Gatoclass:. Flibirigit (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Flibirigit. That was pretty maladroit of me. Apologies to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I've updated the template, set the clock, cleared the queue and updated the next queue number. Haven't done credits yet. Luckily I wasn't sleeping very well and spotted this at 5am UK time! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back online now, thanks BlueMoonset and Amakuru for stepping in! Shubinator (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator. Good to know we're good for tomorrow. If any other admin stops by and sees this, there are a couple of empty queues that are ready to be filled with prep sets. Much appreciated! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I have not done the credits or the talk page notifications - started doing the top one, but seems you have to manually copy over the hook and the nom subpage and I'm on my phone now so too fiddly. So will either do it all later or someone else can do those credits for now. I think all the other bits are done, but if there's an error anywhere let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Understand, but admit that I first thought something went wrong with the article when I didn't see the expected credit for O Jesu Christe, wahres Licht ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hm...I went to Manually posting the new update (if the bot is down) and it says If you have time, please do the credits for the hooks just promoted (see "Credits" section above). I don't see a credits section. If someone can point me at the instructions? —valereee (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: The easiest way to do this that I'm aware of is to go to the version of the queue that the main page was updated from, and then use the "give" and "tag" links in the credits section. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, thanks! Off to break wikipedia! —valereee (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've done all the gives, but there has to be an easier way to do the tags. It seems to require me to open the queue both in the version and in code, copy the hook in code, return to the queue version, click tag, temporarily paste the hook into the edit box, copy code, paste the code, cut the hook, and paste the hook into the code. Can that be right? —valereee (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee:Vanamonde93 are you all talking about the credit templates on the user talk page and the article talk page? Not sure what method that is, but here's a simple method that has worked for me. First of all, do only one kind at a time, so you don't have to switch templates. All the nominator templates in a row, or all the article templates in a row.
  • Pick any hook that's on the archived page.
  • Go to the nominator page and look at the credit they received. Copy that ivmbox template, and use it as your template giving the nominator credits for each of the missed round. Change what is necessary, and paste it on each user page.
  • For the article credits, copy the "DYK talk" template. Copy and paste on each article talk page, changing only what is necessary. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
So the answer seems to be yes, you have to work in three windows. Fun! I am so thankful for all our wonderful bot creators! —valereee (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Done! 14:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, valereee, Maile, and anybody else, I've created an off-Wiki tool to make this all very effortless. So, any time user credits and article talk page notifications need to be manually added, feel free to give me a ping and I'd be happy to take care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Mandarax I have added a notation to our Admin instructions page. diff Thanks. — Maile (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1

... has two hooks by me Herbert Leuninger and Rhythm Is It! (which also means two related to Germany), could you please swap one to prep 3 which has none? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done But Prep 3 had 2 other music hooks, so I moved it on to Prep 7. Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Is the 2 hooks by the same person thing an actual rule? It seems to be occasionally applied, but is nowhere in WP:DYKRULES. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Rule or not, I don't like to take care of two one day ;) - thanks for the adjustment! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

Otto Hahn just passed GA, and I would like to add it to the Template:Did you know nominations/Discovery of nuclear fission to create a double hook. I have a QPQ for it (Template:Did you know nominations/Aurora: Beyond Equality). But it is sitting in Queue 6 and I cannot update it. All that needs to be done is:

  • bold his name in the hook
  • add a {{DYKmake}} card to the Queue:
    * {{DYKmake|Discovery of nuclear fission|Hawkeye7|subpage=Otto Hahn}}

If an admin could do this for me, it would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done but I reversed the arguments to the DYKmake because it seemed to work better that way. Someone please let me know if it should be unreversed or anything else done. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a million!!! (You should also bold Otto Hahn in the Queue 6 hook.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, done that too. (I guess I should have caught that one but these details are complicated if you haven't already done it many times.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • David Eppstein, Hawkeye7, has there been an actual DYK review of Otto Hahn? If not, please reverse the edits that have been done to Queue 6 until such a review has been done, which will require an actual nomination. Please take care of that, Hawkeye7, if you wish to add this article to your hook. GA listing has never been an automatic add at DYK, and for very good reasons. Thanks. (Note that had this been in prep rather than in a queue, it would have been beyond the pale to add the new bold link.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I did verify that it had passed GA before adding it, but did not actually check carefully that it met other DYK requirements (although I expect it does) because I didn't think it would be right to both do a review and edit the queue. If you want it to be more thoroughly reviewed, then unless someone else wants to do the review quickly while it's still in the queue, it should be pulled from the queue for a re-review rather than just dropping the double hook on the floor and pretending it's still a single nomination, as your suggested reversal would do. However, pulling hooks from the queue is beyond what I understand about the behind-scenes machinery of DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, my suggestion included opening a new nomination for Otto Hahn and seeing whether a reviewer (other than the GA reviewer; we don't allow the same reviewer for GAs and DYKs) could handle it in pretty short order, since we'll be going to two-a-day tomorrow and Queue 6 will now be promoted midday Sunday. But it's probably safest and easiest to pull the original nomination from queue at this point, formally add the second article to it, and get it reviewed in the usual way. Pinging a few admins (though any admin is welcome): Amakuru, Maile, Cwmhiraeth, and valereee. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The second hook has already been added to the nomination, and the addition of the second article was discussed during the original review. The sole eligibility requirement of the article is its promotion to GA, which was double checked; the hook was approved based solely on the other article (although it is in fact in both). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
          • When an article passes GA, to go on DYK it still needs to meet some other conditions that might not have been part of the GA review: for instance, it needs to have not been on DYK before, and it needs to meet the DYK standard that every body paragraph has a reference. But as I said above, I don't expect any of that to be problematic in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Return to two sets per day

There are now 126 approved nominations with all prep sets full. We should return to two sets per day very soon as per the recent RFC on long-term solutions for backlog. Flibirigit (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why going to one set a day from two spurs on the reviewers, but it does: we've had a reduction of 36 in the number of unapproved nominations, from 113 to 77, even as the total number of noms has climbed by 27.
We should probably change over just after midnight (so after the 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC) bot update is complete).We will need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 shortly after the main page is updated tonight. Here is what needs to happen with the special occasion hooks currently in preps and queues (admin also required for these moves):
  • Queue 3: nothing should be changed; the special occasion hook for August 29 that is there (Rachael Heyhoe-Flint Trophy) is best run in the first set of the day, or 01:00 to 13:00 local time.
  • Queue 4: the Valley West Mall (Arizona) (bold link is Manistee Town Center) special occasion hook for August 30 should move to Queue 6, the second set of the day, or 08:00 to 20:00 local time. It will need to swap with a hook, and there isn't much to choose from. I'd suggest the "verraco of the bridge" hook; do not use the "nuclear fission" hook as there is an issue with the hook that may not be solved by tomorrow noon, as it involves a required review.
  • Queue 1: the "Battle of Dunbar" hook (which is a special occasion hook for September 3, although not labeled as such) should move to Prep 6, the first set of the day, or 01:00 to 13:00 local time.
Thanks to whoever takes these on. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Nominators should not edit their hooks in Prep or Queue

My understanding is that it is an agreed principal at DYK that once a hook has been promoted to prep and thereafter, nominators are never to edit those hooks. If they want a change, they come to this page and request it.

This has been made clear time and again on this page, and notably to The C of E, who has many times violated this rule and been told not to. I myself have given him warnings, the most recent one here with a very specific warning: The next time you make any edit in prep to a nomination of yours, it will be pulled from prep, and, assuming consensus here agrees in the ensuing discussion, scrapped. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I didn't see this edit before Prep 1 was promoted to Queue 1 or I would have pulled the nomination.

Now that the nomination is in queue, I am requesting that the admin who promoted it (and also approved the nomination), Cwmhiraeth, remove the word "unrecognised" from the hook. I had pointed out in the review that "unrecognised" was factually untrue, at least as concerned the Fermanagh County Council, yet the subsequent hook included the word anyway—and it's not exactly neutral in this situation (and I'm not sure that omitting the political reality of the moment from the article, where the treaty that would create the Irish Republic had been signed days before the council vote was held, is neutral either). I will let discussion here decide whether the hook should be pulled entirely, since I am involved, in that it was my corrective edit in prep, removing the word, that started this chain of events, and I had objected to it during the review.

I would also like to get the temperature of the DYK community on whether we should formally request that The C of E agree to stop making any edits whatever of his hooks once they have been promoted to prep. Too often in this and other matters, his actions have been disruptive. If we agree and he is unwilling to concur, the alternative is to go to WP:ANI and file a formal complaint, requesting that the Misplaced Pages community impose such a remedy, with penalties if not followed. Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I approved the hook that was promoted. The word "unrecognised" seems appropriate to me because Dáil Éireann was a revolutionary parliament of the self-proclaimed Irish Republic that was not recognised internationally. That I then promoted the hook to the Queue was because it was part of a set that I promoted from Prep, and it is often the case that I have been associated with one or other hooks in a set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"unrecognised" removed from the hook. I have added to both T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook and the prep instructional drop-down right above the prep areas, this sentence:
  • Under NO circumstances should any nominator make changes to their own hook, once it has been promoted.
It needed to be clear in the instructions somewhere. This makes it straight across the board, and no need to single out any nominator for an agreement on this. Today, it's The C of E, tomorrow it might be someone else just trying to be helpful. I was not involved in any of the background, but I almost promoted that set to Queue as is, but got sidetracked away from DYK and never did it - but it could have been me doing that. I saw the change, but it didn't click in my head, nor did it click about who made the change. You caught this, because it was something you already had knowledge of. But if I had promoted to Queue, and read the entire article first, I would not have known the historical background to catch that. Also, The C of E works on subject matter in a country other than mine, but we could say that about many nominators of DYK.— Maile (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Category: