Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎NZ rowers: Now that the rowing is over...
Line 320: Line 320:
::::{{U|Bagumba}}, now that "dotting i's and crossing t's" has been done, would you mind reversing your removal of the hook from prep 6? '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color: #000000;">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 03:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
::::{{U|Bagumba}}, now that "dotting i's and crossing t's" has been done, would you mind reversing your removal of the hook from prep 6? '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color: #000000;">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 03:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::Restored to status quo per withdrawn Commons discussion. This is independent of the ongoing discussion on number of rower images.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 05:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::Restored to status quo per withdrawn Commons discussion. This is independent of the ongoing discussion on number of rower images.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 05:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
{{od|::::::}}Now that the rowing is over, I just wanted to reflect that I chose the rowing bios to write or expand wisely. All four got a medal, one of them got two medals, and we are looking at three golds and two silvers from five separate boat classes, and five equals the number of rowing medals that New Zealand achieved. That's not too shabby a selection. '''[[User:Schwede66|<span style="color: #000000;">Schwede</span>]][[User talk:Schwede66|<span style="color: #FF4500;">66</span>]]''' 05:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


== Older nominations needing DYK reviewers ==
== Older nominations needing DYK reviewers ==

Revision as of 05:05, 30 July 2021

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


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 Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

EEng's alternative for addressing/preventing the unapproved backlog

The alternative is: Change the rules as follows:

  • (a) First five noms, no QPQ required;
  • (b) 6th to Nth nom, one QPQ required;
  • (c) After N noms, two QPQs required (assuming there are "enough" noms needing review at the time the new nom is made; some details needed here about how exactly that works, but it's not rocket science).

N might be in the range 10–20; I actually think 10 is about right because I'm guessing few people even get to 10, especially compared to the large number of no-QPQ-required noms from newbies. But we can get stats on that and adjust N accordingly. Elsewhere people have been wringing their hands about how the system will collapse if the unreviewed queue becomes completely empty (we should have such problems!) but I assure you we can deal with that situation. The above change is what's important -- do we want a permanent mechanism for avoiding an unreviewed backlog, or not?
EEng 13:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose backlog drive proposal. Drives are bandaid solutions; they're fun barnstar printers, but you end up in the same place quickly (see WP:GASTATS right after a bolded month) but Support EEng's solution, even though everyone hates it for some reason ("EEng's [...] even though everyone hates it for some reason" is a fruitful game of madlibs). I might prefer a higher credit count than he does, though -- ten makes for a pretty narrow single-QPQ band. "20 credits, 2 reviews" has a good pattern to it and allows for an adjustment period, as well as solving the "we have multiple bottlenecks, short-term reductions of the DYKN backlog are in practice mostly increments of the DYKNA backlog" problem (by resulting in a more moderate but long-term decrease). Vaticidalprophet 08:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, watch out who you're calling fruitful! EEng 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like EEng's proposal, too. I like that it requires more qpqs from frequent nominators, and I like that it means more reviews are being done by experienced people. I like that it's a permanent improvement. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a good one. Re. what number n is, I don't think the important part is how many people have n DYK credits as an absolute, I think it's how many nominations are made by those people as a percentage. Hell, I just barely scrape 20+ and I had multiple nominations open for over a week until a couple hours ago; plenty of people far higher in that range are far more prolific. My wildly unscientific impression is that the 20+ range makes up a much more disproportionate share of the backlog compared to 10-19. (I also find that when I build preps, I promote a lot of the same names.) Vaticidalprophet 14:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support EEng's one. Woohooo (you wanted a rationale for my support? Can't have one. Nur...Ok, don't pout, you can have a perfunctory one: per Valereee ) Belle (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 reviews at 20 DYKs to fix our pipeline problem. If you wanted to be more extreme, 3 reviews at 50 DYKs might be something to think about --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per my views at #Vote on formal proposal for a DYK backlog drive which I don't want to just regurgitate here. I prefer an honour system (do more reviews if you have time) rather than mandatory increasing of workload. But if people do support this, I will (reluctantly) comply with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny, I had a similar conversation the other day with the IRS: I told them I preferred the honor system and would pay them if I had time. They said they would take the idea under advisement. EEng 12:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on some quick investigation and discussion at User_talk:BlueMoonset#Distribution_of_editors_according_to_#_of_DYKs, it seems like 20 might be a good "trigger point" (at which the 2-review requirement kicks in) to start with; once the backlog has been eaten down, a higher trigger point would be enough to keep it down for the long term. But these numbers can be determined more carefully once the idea has been approved in concept. EEng 12:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, two reviews at 20 DYKs seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support EEng's solution (a lifetime first, I think). N could be 25 - as said above, a high % of noms are by those (like me) who have 100+ DYKs, so using a much higher number than 25 would probably have a good effect. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General support although we might want to clarify when one QPQ is enough (say, when there are fewer than 25 open nominations). Perhaps anyone eligible for listing on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs should do extra QPQ reviews (although I'd prefer a number larger than 27 as the cutoff out of laziness). —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, since if this works there will be times there is no (significant) backlog, there will need to be some trigger that suspends the double-review requirement until the backlog grows again. Now, you might imagine people will game that -- delay making a nom for a while to avoid having to do a double review. But we aren't cynical enough to imagine any of our esteemed fellow editors would do such a thing, do we? EEng 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to use Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs as a measure, we'd need to update it reasonably frequently. It looks to be very out-of-date (it says I have 113 DYKs, when I just passed 200). Might be worth trying to integrate it with the QPQ check tool that gets the up-to-date information from it. Otherwise, we'd be missing people who reach the threshold. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously we'll find some way to have reliable counts. No doubt our tireless script/bot wizards can cook something up -- the same machinery that gives you your little talk-page congratulation can increment a tally. EEng 13:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For some insane reason WBDYK is manually updated, so something that switches it to auto-updating sounds overdue -- it's not like we don't have the machinery for it (this has been around for ages, as you can tell by the fact it's maintained(?) by someone who's been indeffed for the better part of a decade). Would recommend doing something about WP:DYKSTATS, while we're at it, as it hasn't been updated since April. Vaticidalprophet 13:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we can just use the ever-so-popular honour system; the only people who don't know their personal DYK score have less than N because they haven't yet been fully initiated into the cult....starts chanting Temple of Doom style:QPQ did you know, QPQ did you know, QPQ did you know... Belle (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about that, and we might use that at first, but I think in the end something automated is appropriate (even if just to have reliable statistics as a general principle). We've always used a manual/honor system for the "first 5", but that only requires counting on the fingers of one hand. I personally have only a vague idea how many DYK credits I have -- I'm sure it's at least 20, but beyond that I really don't know. EEng 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    30 according to the tool. Vaticidalprophet 14:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So EEng can still count them on one hand [pokes out tongue] Belle (talk)
    Just you wait! EEng 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly me. I didn't even know there was such a tool. Parties wanting to know more about Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators ("forcibly withdrawn after officials clamped down on them") and other such things might want to check out User:EEng#dyk. EEng 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK credits were done manually back in the Dark Ages, so the automated list is incomplete (compare [1] and User:Kusma/DYK). —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone think how we'd go too far wrong if we trawled each user's contribution history for page creations of the form Template:Did you know nominations/xxxxxxx? EEng 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd miss stuff like this successful nom from 2006 (that was before the introduction of QPQ). —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Those ages seem pretty dark indeed. If someone who's <20 by the autostats is >20 by pre-2007 manual stats, I'm happy to count them as <20 until they get over the hump -- they don't have the recent DYK experience-slash-backlog-flooding that's being picked up on here. Vaticidalprophet 14:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone codes this somewhere, please anticipate a possible namespace change for the DYK nom system. —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've struck out my own proposal and offering general support for this and N=20. Desertarun (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanna give a shout-out here to Desertarun for his work on the backlog proposal. Since the double-QPQ idea is really for preventing a backlog, and would take a long time to eat down the huge existing backlog formed over many years, there may still be a place for a one-time drive after all. EEng 15:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think fixing the structural in built problem with the QPQ system is the most important thing we can do for DYK. Whatever achieves that goal is ok with me. I could set up a more casual backlog drive if this goes through. Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some old cattle prods in the closet. EEng 15:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written. Only because monitoring DYK history of other editors is too big of a headache. See my modified proposal of EEng's proposal below for a simpler but similar solution that I think will be easier to implement. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted elsewhere there's a simple tool that gives the info needed. I predict there will be relatively few people above the key number (relative to all DYKers, including the many who make just one nom, or a few noms, then disappear), and they'll know who they are. We don't need some kind of rigid gatekeeping or enforcement. EEng 04:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, As someone that has been a low key contributor of hooks every few months over the past 10 years this is now penalizing me for contributing, since I fall into the +400 range of hooks am I going to be told I need to review 3 4 or 5 nominations for the single one I contribute?--20:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin (talk • contribs)
    No, just two, and only when there's a backlog (which it looks like won't be often, after this one's cleared). EEng 22:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'd prefer to run a backlog drive, but I think this is a great second-choice. We already have the tools to determine how many DYKs someone has, it just involves counting. Some expressed concerns that longterm editors have several unused DYKs from years ago, negating this effort, but I don't think that's every longterm DYK nominator, and I'm OK with rewarding editors who reviewed a lot in the past. I'm a little worried about conveying the "trigger" of 2 QPQ to those who don't frequent this talk page: the current 60/120 trigger for preps and queues happen every week or two. If the triggers for 2QPQ are similar, it can cause much greater confusion. I hope the triggers will be much wider to avoid this. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We lack hard statistics, but I believe the cycle time for this new scheme will be more like 9 months 1QPQ, 3 months 2QPQ, repeat (after the current backlog is eaten down, which will take quite some time). 02:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    My impression was that the triggers would be the number of articles waiting for approval. The above comment gives me the impression that it will be set times for the triggers to take affect (Like January-Sept: 1QPQ, Oct-Dec: 2QPQ). I prefer article triggers over set times every year. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it will be based on the # of noms awaiting review; a fixed schedule would make no sense. I was simply envisioning how rapid (or not rapid) the cycling back and forth might be -- very slow, on the order of months, because it appears the backlog grows very slowly. EEng 15:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was my misinterpretation of your comment, EEng. I hope the triggers are wide enough to cause the 9 month/3 month cycle you describe above. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's escalate!
  • Anyone else? EEng 19:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sound of crickets> EEng 17:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • *steps on crickets* Support 2 for 20 per Belle. (And also support further escalations such as 3 for 50+, 4 for 100+, and so on. I support further escalation in general.) Waiving it during low-backlog periods also sounds reasonable. Levivich 20:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I'm an ass. Actually, Support. In seriousness, this seems like it has the potential to get more editors at low output levels, while not letting it get dominated by a few regulars. Personally, I find most of the DYK hooks boring. But with a wider selection of editors (and a faster rate of review by the regulars, who are going to be better able to do that well).
    And if it just crashes and burns and ruins everything, we can blame Eeng for it, let some grumpy admin block him and then march on ANI with torches and pitchforks and demand an unblock and a grovelling apology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:NOTBURO. 1 QPQ is fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't have a problem as bad as GA (Who don't even have required QPQs by the way). Most of our backlog (which is fairly minor) comes from reviews that end up with walls of text abandoned by the original reviewer that scares people off having a look. I think this proposal is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, there's no need for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a backlog as bad as GA because we have QPQ. So we already have the hammer, and the proposal is to finally crack the nut by wielding the hammer just a bit harder. Other techniques -- yelling at the nut, pleading with the nut, and praying that the nut will somehow crack open on its own -- haven't worked. EEng 12:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting specific

  • Comment: since we do major changes like this after an RfC, can we have one with a firm proposal that uses actual numbers, such as 20 or 25 DYK credits for the point where the second QPQ can be required, and equally as important, the number of nominated but unapproved DYK noms at which the requirement for the second QPQ turns on, and the lower number when it turns off again. (We don't want a single number for both, and we should probably discuss what makes sense before an RfC begins.) Also, is the determination as to the number of QPQs due based on when the nomination was made, when the initial full review is made, or when the final approval happens? We should decide this as well so it's clearly stated up front. I should note that I absolutely Oppose the idea that we "escalate" beyond two QPQs. If going to two QPQs doesn't solve the backlog, then the basic assumptions behind the proposal are flawed and some other approach should be tried, not doubling down on something that isn't working. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely Oppose the idea that we "escalate" beyond two QPQs – You don't know Levivich well enough to know when he's kidding. I do. He was kidding.
  • I don't think we can tie ourselves to a hard, fixed number of credits as the point where the double-review requirement kicks in -- there are too many imponderables and we may need to adjust according to experience. We can say for certain that it should never be less than 10, and almost certainly wouldn't be higher than 20. You see, 20 might be too high -- not enough double reviews getting done -- so it might need to be as low as 10. But if you don't need to be lower than 20, it might be better that it not be, so that editors have as much experience as possible before becoming subject to the double requirement.
    So in summary, I think we should say we expect it will start at 15, but in time might be adjusted to anywhere between 10 and 20 by discussion on this page.
  • Setting the high and low trigger points (number of unreviewed nominations) in advance is similarly difficult. Among the considerations:
    • Some proportion of "unreviewed" noms are in fact being reviewed, just the review isn't complete, issues have arisen that require the nominator's attention, etc.
    • Even after you exclude those, it's desirable to not go below having a few dozen noms ("virgin" noms -- no review started) so that the pump is always primed.
    • We don't want to cycle between "doubles required" and "doubles not required" too quickly, because that causes confusion. (That's a consideration for the 10-20 question as well.)
I want to gather some statistics before going on, but I've gotta go right now.
EEng 17:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By specific I think more exact wording for the proposal is requested. As we have 6 support votes for N=20, that would be the base number, so your proposal should start with something like below and then give the background to the RFC, its need etc. I don't think it will add anything to the RFC if we're complicating it with too much detail about changes to N we might want to make in the future.
  • (a) First five noms, no QPQ required;
  • (b) 6th to 19 noms, one QPQ required;
  • (c) 20 or more noms, two QPQs required;
Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think if we don't tie ourselves to a hard minimum number of credits—remember, we want reviewers to have gained enough experienced before we add a second review to their dish—we're going to have problems. The idea that someone with five reviews under their belt has enough experience to graduate to a doubled reviewing requirement is highly problematic: I count myself a good reviewer but I was not yet one after five QPQ reviews. You can count on my opposition if the number isn't at least 20 credits (approximately 15 DYK reviews). Desertarun, a couple of points on your breakdown: first, let's make it 21 or more: first 5 credits are free, nominations for the next 15 credits (through 20 total) require one QPQ, with two QPQs thereafter. Second, please note that it's a nominator's number of credits (nomination and creation/expansion both) that governs, not just the number of their nominations: right now, the first five DYK credits are free but your next nomination after that, whether you were the nominator on all five or not, requires a QPQ. (PS: Levivich may have been kidding, but he wasn't the first to suggest going beyond two reviews per nom.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC post (under development)

Since a lot of people seem very set on 20/21 as the boundary, let's go with that. So is this right as you see it, BlueMoonset? Feel free to fix (and we'll discuss what goes in the placeholder in (c) separately) ...EEng 06:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started work on version 1. Desertarun (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I heartlessly eviscerated it [2]. EEng 12:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I put version numbers there expecting you'd move mine to version 2, and over time they'd merge to an agreed post, I wasn't expecting you to delete it. I'm not going to be putting my name to this, it is your proposal but getting the wording right will be difficult and right now neither yours nor mine is that good. Desertarun (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete it. I thought I could improve what was there and edited it, and in the end it came out a lot different. If you think you can improve it, do so. (I included a diff above for easy access to the prior version.) But remember that too much background is undesirable because many people just stop reading. There's no need for parallel versions. EEng 16:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is better than mine and I agree parallel versions aren't really worth it. I'm thinking the opening line should state the purpose of what we want to achieve for the community, this would be reduced waiting times. I don't think that falls into background info, it is a selling point, or the hook, for the proposal. Desertarun (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Your first line is blindingly clever! I'd like to use it but have no idea if we can. Thank you for making me laugh! Desertarun (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<coughs politely> [3] EEng 21:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing again! ;-) Desertarun (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You[Confused editor?] were so blinded by the cleverness that you confused Vprophet for me. I don't know which of us is more insulted. EEng 21:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the important part that they talk about you at all? Vaticidalprophet 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. EEng 01:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should be using the word voted, because the vote we had here, by the people that know the issues, was important. We're looking for the RFC to rubber stamp our vote. Desertarun (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's my own scheme I want to make sure this point is clear in case anyone feels it misrepresents: per Desertarun's suggestion I've changed DYK regulars broadly support to DYK regulars have !voted to support. EEng 20:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed RfC text

Did you know ... that articles nominated for WP:Did You Know often wait months for approval?

Editors nominating an article for Did You Know generally must review someone else's nomination; this is called the QPQ (quid pro quo). But because new DYKers are allowed to make up to five nominations exempt from this requirement, there are always slightly more nominations coming in than reviews being performed, and over the years a large backlog has accumulated. To reduce this backlog, so that nominations can be reviewed more promptly, DYK regulars have !voted to change the rules for DYK's review requirement. Those rules currently provide

If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ.

The proposal is to substitute this text:

At the time a nomination is promoted to the main page ...
  • (a) if the nominator has fewer than 5 credits (whether or not self-nominated), no QPQ is required;
  • (b) if the nominator has at least 5 credits but fewer than 20 credits, the nominator must do one QPQ;
  • (c) if the nominator has 20 or more credits, the nominator must do two QPQs (if there's a backlog) or one QPQ (if not).

"Credits" and the "first five free"

  • Popping in a bit, I've barely been able to edit these past few days...I'm unconvinced having a cyclical system is a good idea. I recognize EEng started talking about it, and it didn't net active opposition, but it strikes me as primarily adding an additional layer of confusion. I already suspect there will be people coming in confused that suddenly they have to do two QPQs, is it really a good thing to spring "oh, and by the way the rules will change on you repeatedly" on them? I think we at least want to trial this at first, to see if ending up with too few open noms is even a risk with this method. The 20-credits range still includes plenty of people who don't follow DYK with the intensity this seems to demand. Vaticidalprophet 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "cyclic system" you mean having times when the double-QPQ requirement aaplies, and times when it doesn't, I'm afraid there's no way around that; we can't insist on a nominator doing an extra review when there aren't surplus noms waiting for review. What we can do, probably, is arrange for the transitions from double-requirement to no-double-requirement, then back to double-requirement, etc etc etc, be infrequent and far apart (on the order of many months). We do this by making upper and lower trigger points far enough apart, though I don't think that means making them as far apart as one might think. More on this later but first I'd like to see where people are with the (a) (b) (c) I posted above. EEng 06:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the a/b/c idea, but not for anyone but the nominator. People get added as creators, sometimes without their knowledge, for simply doing the heavy lifting to get an iffy nom into reasonable shape. —valereee (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For years I thought that for the purposes of "first five free", only nominations count -- your first five nominations are free, any nominations after that require a QPQ. Recently BlueMoonset pointed out that a close reading of the rules suggests that any "credit" counts, where a credit is being either the nominator or a creator/expander/GA-ifier; in other words, any time the bot congratulates you on your talk page, that's a credit that counts against your free five. Maybe that makes sense or maybe it doesn't, but apparently that's the way it already is. EEng 21:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility #5 Review requirement, "If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ." only refers to the nominator. It is not anytime the bot congratulates you. QPQ only applies to nominators. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait a minute. Now I think I see the confusion "whether or not self-nominated" ... maybe that needs to be clarified. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're saying in your second post, but as written: (1) yes QPQ applies only to nominators, but (2) one of your "free five" gets eaten up each time you get any credit (nominator, creator, expander, GA-ifier), not just when you nominate. I'll say again that for 10 years this had escaped my notice, but now that BlueMoonset has pointed it out, it does seem to be correct. Plus I can't recall BMS being wrong about anything ever, so resistance is futile.
But maybe we should resist after all. We're always fretting about inexperienced people doing reviews. Now, the way I thought (and Maile thought, and it appears valereee thought) things worked, by the time you're required to do a review you'll have had the experience of having made 5 nominations, and thus been on the receiving end of 5 reviews. (Let's call that the Maile Rule.) But under the Blue Moon Rule (shall we call it), you might have done nothing but stood by innocently while someone nominated five articles you created; then, someday, you make your first DYK nomination and BOOM!, you have to do a review.
Notice that if we switch from the Blue Moon rule to the Maile Rule, the backlog gets bigger, but maybe not by all that much -- 75% of noms currently awaiting approval are self-noms, though that's only a rough indicator. EEng 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resist! Resist! Power to the newbies! To tack on a QPQ for being the creator (but not nominator) of a previous DYK, is a bit like handing your credit card over to a sales clerk who, after running it through their scanner, sort of mumbles, "Oh, by the way, the store reserves the right to add other costs to your purchase." — Maile (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had no idea that was the rule. Belle came in here just a couple days ago wondering how they'd ended up with a credit on their talk. I agree that it probably doesn't add much to the backlog, and no one who hasn't been reviewed five times should be required to do reviews. I guess someone could game it...just keep finding new stooges to nominate your articles...tell me, (username redacted), did EEng offer you anything to make that nom? —valereee (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've got probably hundreds of reviews that I could use for QPQ (unless they expire); anybody who wants to nom and avoid a QPQ come see me and we can work out our own "QPQ". [wink] This is a joke. Please don't. Please. Belle (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Belle, remember what they said at your parole hearing. EEng 17:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The credits came in when we closed the loophole that allowed people to nominate for each other without QPQs required by either creator/expander or nominator; only self-nominations had to have QPQs after the initial self-nominated freebies. Somehow, the bulk of those who'd taken advantage of the loophole managed to do QPQs once it was the nominator's responsibility regardless of who worked on the article, and the reviewing imbalance lessened. I'm really not seeing a problem if a nominator has one or two credits from another's nominations—it may be how they become aware of DYK in the first place, getting that first "credit" post on their talk page. It used to be that it was the fifth self-nomination that had a QPQ; that's long since morphed into the first five as freebies rather than four, but if someone is actively involved in four rather than five, it's not the end of the earth. People are always willing to help out a first-time reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really follow, since it seems like the loophole would have been closed by simply making all noms count, not just self-noms. But now is not the time to tinker with that. {{|BlueMoonset}}, you've been very quiet while the RfC text is being developed. What think you? EEng 22:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: for some reason, the proposed text includes the phrase at the time you make a nom, which changes how things currently work. If someone has only four credits, and they nominate another four within a short period of time and before any of these new ones appear on the main page, this says that all four are freebies, which is hardly desirable. How DYK currently works is that one would be free, but the other three would need QPQs. (This is similar to someone with four credits nominating a four-article DYK: the rules are specific that the first of the four is free, but the rest will require QPQs.) It should be easy enough to reword so the wording expresses the intent (five free, fifteen at one QPQ each, and all subsequent at two QPQs each). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone has only four credits, and they nominate another four within a short period of time and before any of these new ones appear on the main page, this says that all four are freebies, which is hardly desirable. How DYK currently works is that one would be free, but the other three would need QPQs. I did pretty much exactly this (made a bunch of nominations in a short period with <5 credits), and it worked as the former, not the latter. I did the QPQs anyway because I was under the impression it was the latter, but in at least one case was told by the reviewer I didn't need to. I suspect there may be confusion on this point. Vaticidalprophet 04:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that confusion is due to nominations often not being seen, rather that an issue with the rule. The QPQchecker tool catches only when DYKs hit the front page (and thus a user's talkpage), so anyone using it won't see if a nominator has other open noms. I agree with BlueMoonset that it should be per main page rather than at the time of nom (and if the occasional reviewer/nominator misses this weird edge case and gets a 'freebie' then that's not a huge issue). CMD (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, it's all true, and I'm ashamed to say I missed this race condition. All of this complication arises from this idea of counting credits instead of just noms, but I'll repeat that now isn't the time to tinker with that (though I'm sorely tempted). Anyway, I fixed this in the RfC text. EEng 05:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of the notes? In answering that question I think it is to say a) Don't take against this proposal because you think we're trying to introduce credits! and b) don't take against this proposal because you don't understand credits! and c) If you don't believe we have a credit system now here's the [link]. What we want from the RFC is permission to change but the credit system isn't changing and we don't need permission for it to stay the same. Maybe we could copyedit the explanation of what credits are and reword. I guess we could just leave it like that as well, because people often don't read notes. Desertarun (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I added the note when we discovered that so many people (including I) didn't understand how they worked. But I realize we don't need to mention it at all, since it's not changing. Ignorance is bliss. EEng 20:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your latest additions are good, as you think best with the notes. Desertarun (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I can think of anything else to say, without input from others. Desertarun (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about upper/lower trigger points

I've just counted what we have on the nominations page (not approved page).

  • 49 nominations less than a week old that have never been reviewed.
  • 71 nominations over a week old that are never reviewed.
  • 8 nominations under review in 0-7 days old
  • 10 nominations under review 8-14 days old
  • 17 nominations reviewed 15-28 days old
  • 25 nominations reviewed over 28 days old
  • 8 nominations in the process of withdrawing, commented upon but not reviewed or otherwise unclassified.
  • 188 nominations total backlog.
  • 120 or 63% are never reviewed

Based upon these stats I think we should go with 2 QPQ kicking in when there are 80 on the nominations page, and go back to 1 QPQ when we are below 40. Of those 40 we could expect 63% i.e. 25 to be new and unreviewed and 15 to be under review. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned some numbers above, but do we really need to have specific numbers in the RFC proposal? I don't think so. That's more of DYK management issue which should be discussed here, we don't want to be tied down by the RFC in case we need to change things. So we need some kind of generality statement for c) If you have 21 or more credits at the time you make a nom, two QPQs are required when we're in backlog. Desertarun (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How long would we be in backlog initially? I know we were talking about a one off backlog drive like originally planned by me, which would be a good idea. Is that going to be mentioned? Desertarun (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, its just complicating matters, we should do that independantly of the RFC. Desertarun (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So first, I've been meaning to thank you for gathering the stats. When I said above I want to gather some statistics, those were very much the stats I had in mind. Imagine my pleasure on discovering you'd saved my the trouble!
On the main question of trigger points, I had the same idea you do. It's impossible to predict how quickly the backlog will draw down once the new rule takes effect, but pretty sure it will be somewhere between really slowly and just plain slowly. And (as your stats confirm show) a LOT of unapproved noms are not "virgins" but noms with significant activity which has stalled for some reason, and this complicates even the question of what counts as "unreviewed backlog" (or is it "unapproved backlog"?). So what I'd prefer, if we could sell it, is to leave the high/low trigger points undefined for now, see what we learn as the drawdown progresses, and define the trigger points later. EEng 04:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put that in the text. We should also mention we won't be in backlog for that long. I added some rough and ready wording. Desertarun (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic hooks

There are quite a few hooks with an Olympic theme at DYK at the moment. There's the special holding area for approved hooks but other nominations are still awaiting approval. Some nominations have specific date requests, others just say "Olympics" and there are nominations that don't make a request for the hook as part of the Olympics. We might look at the Olympic calendar to align hooks with when a particular sport starts. As Vaticidalprophet mentions in the special date request moves discussion above, these special date requests can be "an annoyance". I admit that I'm contributing to this (four of the hooks are mine) and thus thought I might as well give the Olympic hooks some structure so that it's less of a bother. Looking at the number of approved hooks, it would be safe to assume that we won't drop below 60 during the Olympics so the 12-hour-cycle should remain for the time being. I suggest that a useful principle is to have hooks on the frontpage at the same time as a relevant event happens. For example, Oman at the 2016 Summer Olympics would usefully show while the opening ceremony (23 July 2021; 20:00–23:30 JST) is going on. Hooks tick over at 9:00 h (morning) and 21:00 h (evening) Japan Standard Time.

I've tried to identify everything that's currently in process. Feel free to edit the table below as you see fit. Note there's also Olympic Tower amongst the nominations but it has nothing to do with the sports event. Using the method as suggested here will make some of the hook sets quite Olympics-heavy. But given the attention that the event will get, maybe that's not a bad thing. Schwede66 23:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another look and yes, there are two further hooks (approved and yet to be approved). I shall list them accordingly. Somebody might want to review the Kenya women's national volleyball team in a bit of a hurry. Schwede66 08:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, needs work but I suspect it'll get through, so perhaps worth leaving a prep spot open. CMD (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another Olympic hook waiting for approval: Marthe Yankurije Schwede66 09:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article Requested Suggested date Prep set Notes (all times in JST) Status
Grace Prendergast 24 July 24 July am Prep 4 to coincide with the heats of the women's coxless pair posted
Tom Murray 25 July 25 July am Prep 6 morning hook set posted
Hannah Osborne 23 July 28 July am Prep 5 to coincide with the A-final of the women's double scull posted
Emma Twigg 23 July 23 July am Prep 2 to coincide with the heats of the women's single sculls posted
Tehani Egodawela 23 July (as the Olympics start date) 24 July am Prep 4 morning hook set; Women's 10 metre air pistol competition starts at 8:30 posted
Jo Muir Non-specific 5 August am morning hook set; competition starts with fencing at 13:00 Approved
Michael McIntyre Non-specific 26 July am Prep 1 this is a 1988 competitor and whilst sailing starts on 25 July at 12:00, that hook set was too crowded so he's been bumped back by 24 hours posted
Lisa Barbelin Non-specific 23 July am Prep 2 morning hook set; competition starts at 13:00 posted
Oman at the 2016 Summer Olympics 23 July (as the Olympics start date) 23 July pm Prep 3 evening hook set; opening ceremony starts at 20:00 posted
Hélène Defrance Non-specific 28 July am Prep 5 morning hook set; this is a 2016 competitor who competed in the 470 class and that event will start on 28 July at 12:00 h; never mind, it got promoted for much earlier apperance posted
Mandy Bujold Non-specific 29 July am Prep 7 As per the discussion below, we'll move that to 29 July for the round of 16 posted
Esra Yıldız Non-specific 27 July am Prep 3 morning hook set; competition starts at 13:00 posted
2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team July 23 or 24 before the U.S.'s first game on 25th 25 July pm Prep 7 Why not have it online when their first game starts on 25 July at 21:00 h, at exactly the time that the evening set goes online?
=> It's somewhat conceivable Durant can break the record during the 1st game, and the hook would become dated on the MP. But WP:ERRORS can handle that like with ITN real time changes.		 posted
Alica Schmidt Non-specific 5 August am morning hook set; the heats are at 19:25 h and 19:37 h Approved
Tuğba Şenoğlu Olympic holding area not requested but that would obviously make sense 29 July pm Prep 1 Turkey's second game is on 29 July 2021 at 21:45 h In prep
Jeremiah T. Mahoney Non-specific 30 July pm Prep 3 I've simply picked a date where no other hook will appear In prep
Kenya women's national volleyball team 25 July 25 July am Prep 6 ALT2 makes specific reference to their first game, which starts at 19:40 h on 25 July (i.e. will likely finish at about the same time as the pm hook set starts) posted
Larisa Iordache Not requested 26 July am Prep 1 Article made no mention that she's in Tokyo but this has since been fixed. posted
Marthe Yankurije "before 8 August" 2 August am Prep 1 Round 1 for her event is on 30 July (too soon) and the final is on 2 August at 19:00 h (let's aim for that one if the approval process works out). In prep
Isabelle Connor Not requested, but makes sense 6 August am Event qualifying appears to be 6 August 10:20 h, final 7 August 11:00 h Approved
Aya Mpali "Hopefully this can make it for the 30th" 30 July am Prep 2 She's competing on 30 July in heat 2 at 19:26 h In prep
Édgar Arredondo "ALT0 is in case this can be posted during the Olympics" ? Baseball starts on 30 July and Mexico will play on 30 and 31 July. After that, knock-out stage is from 1 to 5 August. Awaiting review
The link on Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics was wrong: the text and sources said under 51kg (which is flyweight), but it was linking to the under 57kg (featherweight). As for the non-current Olympians, if it's easier, just put them any date. Though all your suggestions seem reasonable to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Defrance's specific sailing event (that she used to compete in) starts on 28 July- if we push it back to then, we don't get too many Olympic hooks on 25 July am (where we currently have 4 scheduled). Or just push it to any date that week, as there's sailing events on. I apologise in advance, as I have 6 of these hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a limit to two Olympics/athletic hooks per set, and any sets that have more than that should be spread out. Tuğba Şenoğlu can perhaps go on July 27 as that is Turkey's second volleyball game. We also have a lot of New Zealand rowers in the Olympics holding area that should be spread out. I'd also appreciate that the hooks are separated by suggested dates instead of bunched together in the Olympic area, as that will make it easier for preppers to select the best hook for each date. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the four New Zealand rowers in the Olympics holding area are spread out across three days. However, if two in one slot is considered one too many, how about the following scenario? A lot of commentators expect Hannah Osborne to (probably) win gold in the women's double scull and anything but making the podium would be a massive surprise. That A-final is on 28 July. She's then expected to be in another A-final with the women's eight on 30 July and World Rowing is on record as saying that Australia and New Zealand will sort out gold and silver between them, with the other teams squabbling over bronze (that's all referenced in the article). My suggestion is that we put the hook into the 30 July am slot, await the outcome of the double scull final and if she does indeed medal on the 28th, we modify the hook by making reference to her going after a second medal. How does that sound? Schwede66 02:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 Olympic hooks in a set seems fine, any more is probably too much (especially if they're all biographies). 25th am currently has 4 hooks suggested, so McIntyre should probably be bumped (least date-specific of the 4), and one of the others could be moved to another date where they're competing e.g. Tuğba Şenoğlu to one of the other volleyball game dates, or Mandy Bujold to the 29th (it seems likely that she'll pass the qualifying round). Ditto we have 3 hooks for 23rd am, we could push Lisa Barbelin to 27 or 28 July, which is when the next rounds are (again, it seems likely that they'll still be in the tournament by then, as she's ranked world #2). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! If you get one or two not quite right then it will give someone a reason to add to the chat:-) Well done Victuallers (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll implement my latest suggestion (Hannah Osborne) and process what Joseph said. Give me a moment. Schwede66 09:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One point if you bump some of those who are likely to win by 12 hours then the consolation is that the article can include the result of success or surprise. Victuallers (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Had some brain fade and confused Hannah Osborne with Grace Prendergast. It's the latter who was down to compete in two boat classes so I'll have to rejigg the table. That said, I've now seen the start list and the Prendergast / Kiddle pair is not part of the initial women's eight. Not sure whether Rowing NZ have changed their mind. To be safe, I'll swap things around so that it makes sense. Schwede66 01:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, why don't those of us who haven't nominated or reviewed but who watch this page move those hooks into preps where the prep is ready for it? That way, the hooks won't get overlooked. I'll move a prep set or two into the queue later this morning and that way, we'll have room to have the next few days covered. Schwede66 21:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a Kenya volleyball hook to the table above, but the nomination is still under review. If it gets signed off shortly, we have three hooks in the 25 am slot and going by the above discussion, that's one too many. I suggest that we bump Mandy Bujold to 29 July as suggested above (round of 16), but I couldn't find a time for her second-round competition. Who can help? User:Joseph2302, you previously suggested that; got access to the times? Schwede66 19:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Righto, I wasn't reading this section closely enough, Tom Murray was promoted and the picture hook from prep6 moved to prep7. The caption for Tom Murray needs trimming and now I'll probably just leave prep 6 for someone else to finish and add a few more to prep 7. Desertarun (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaticidalprophet Thanks for picking Hannah Osborne as lead hook – the uncropped version of the photo is a stunner! However, that's the wrong prep; should be prep 5 as per the above table. Schwede66 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I respect the work you've put in here, but I don't think it's written with a strong understanding of the logistics of prep building or of the history of "need to run things in specific time zones" discussions. There's never been consensus for nominators to be able to request a time zone position in a 12-hour set (and indeed fairly recent conversations deciding this is anti-consensus), and the 12/24-hour switchover issue means tracking stuff down to the level of individual preps is a recipe for "and then we have to rebuild all those preps a week later". I was making a note to write a longer post about the logistics here, but I've had fairly little opportunity for editing recently and the matter seems to have kind of gotten away from me. Vaticidalprophet 23:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many other sports events have had DYK nominations deliberately timed to coincide with the times of matches (e.g. the last few year's FA Cup Final noms, 2021 Challenge Cup Final, 2020 London Marathon to name a few). As these are usually the first hooks being promoted, I don't see how it adds difficulty for promoters in balancing prep sets- and I believe it makes it easier, as they don't need to worry about which times is best. And an advantage of the table is to help promoters, so we don't get too many Olympics hooks running together. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's too late, but I have another hook for a late addition to the Mexican Olympic baseball team. If it's possible to review and promote Template:Did you know nominations/Édgar Arredondo for a DYK set during the Olympics, that would be great. If not, I totally understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Timing would be suitable for prep 2 but that was already full. It so happened that I had to pull one hook from Q1 over close paraphrasing concerns. Hence I've moved one hook from prep 2 to Q1 and that provided a suitable opening to promote this hook. Lucky you, as otherwise I would have simply said you've left it too late. I'm uncertain about Aya Mpali's common name and will post about that on her talk page. Schwede66 22:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cwmhiraeth: the approved hook says "... that the flagbearer for Gabon..." when there were two, and the original hooks said "a", could this be corrected? Kingsif (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue

  • I'm somewhat alarmed by the phrase women's coxless pair seen in the table above. Perhaps someone can explain. Also, why are they called heats? It sounds like animal husbandry. EEng 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NZ rowers

Prendergast in July 2021

No offense to NZ rowers, but are they really the only Olympic athletes worth getting a picture slot this week? Considering how many countries and sports are participating, having three picture slots from the same sport and the same country seems excessive to me – and presumably will to others as well. MeegsC (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're the only Olympic hooks nominated where we have photos, so far as I've seen (I've nominated 6 of the Olympic hooks, and have 0 photos for any of them). We were donated lots of NZ rowers photos, which is why we have good quality photos of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a concern with the image in Prep 6 for the Tom Murray nom and opened a Commons discussion. I've move the image off of the prep for now. Courtesy ping to nominator Schwede66.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. None of the other Olympic hooks has photos. I've written a number of good bios for NZ rowers and have nominated those where there were photos available. Three of the four photos are superb and if I could have chosen which three get picked, then Grace Prendergast (prep 4) would be there with a photo instead of Emma Twigg (queue 2).
Apart from that, there's a bit more to this all. Some of us have got together and issued a media release – Wikipedia and Olympic rowing. I've just exchanged some direct messages with a news journalist in Tokyo to interview one of the contributors; she's the photographer and I've only just recruited her to be a contributor to Commons.
And I really do not share the concern with the Commons photo. It was taken by the photographer and she added the artwork. Here's a link to her website. I had a long chat with her on the phone before she started contributing to Commons, so I know the context to this. Can I maybe plead to treat newbies who have a lot to contribute with some respect and courtesy? Isn't WP:AGF one of the fundamentals of this community? Schwede66 08:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a creative artist, I hope she can appreciate that we try to protect people's rights to their works. If it's her content, it should just be a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, I've written a long and detailed explanation in response to the deletion request. I would like you to withdraw that forthwith as it has the potential to be very damaging. Schwede66 08:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They may be "the only hooks where we have photos", but there's no reason why we have to use them all in the picture spot! We were worried that there were "too many hooks about Canada" on Canada Day but don't see a problem with this? Seriously? There are other non-Olympic hooks with pictures that aren't being run because the NZ rowers are being featured instead? Sorry, but that seems pretty unfair to me! MeegsC (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, promoters have a choice whether or not to use the images, and multiple promoters have chosen to use the images. The "jedi" image is by far the most interesting one, so if the above licencing discussion gets sorted out, I would definitely run that one as an image hook. And this isn't the same as Canada Day- we're making sure to spread the Olympic hooks, rather than having them all in one go like the Canada Day suggestion wanted to. If promoters think there have been too many of one type of hook, then just don't use it as the image hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, now that "dotting i's and crossing t's" has been done, would you mind reversing your removal of the hook from prep 6? Schwede66 03:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restored to status quo per withdrawn Commons discussion. This is independent of the ongoing discussion on number of rower images.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the rowing is over, I just wanted to reflect that I chose the rowing bios to write or expand wisely. All four got a medal, one of them got two medals, and we are looking at three golds and two silvers from five separate boat classes, and five equals the number of rowing medals that New Zealand achieved. That's not too shabby a selection. Schwede66 05:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The old list having been archived a few hours ago, this new list below includes 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 3. We currently have a total of 302 nominations, of which 137 have been approved, a gap of 165, down 31 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

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) 05:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N Muskegon band of Little River OTTAWA tribal recognition

Any infiAnywhere? LoyalT S (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand? Desertarun (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review for the 31st please

Hi all. Template:Did you know nominations/Police Anti-Terrorist Unit was nominated at the start of the month and has been requested for 31 July to coincide with disbanding. It hasn't been reviewed yet so can I ask if this can be done so it can still run on the requested day please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I went through and reviewed the nomination The C of E, there should be plenty of time for it to run on the 31st.BuySomeApples (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Pinging admins Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, valereee, Maile66, Casliber, ONUnicorn. We're down to two sets in the approved queue. MeegsC (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging admins Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, valereee, Maile66, Casliber, ONUnicorn. We're down to one filled queue, but there are four filled preps. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will have time in a few hours to promote a prep set. Given that there are hooks throughout the prep sets that I've had involvement in (either as nominator or as promoter), is it ok to grab the next prep set where the isn't a conflict for me? For example, move prep 6 to queue 6, even if queue 5 is still empty? Schwede66 00:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, apparently the sets must be moved in the right order. I routinely promote sets in which there are one or two hooks in which I am involved as nominator/reviewer/promoter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Thanks. Schwede66 09:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q3 July27a

Template:Did you know nominations/Hunegund of France

Figureskatingfan I don't see where in the article it says the documents did these two things? —valereee (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee I thought that the hook may have been a rewording of the what the article was saying. I guess I was wrong. Pinging Gerda Arendt as the reviewer and to see what she thinks of the my alt. ... that two hagiographic documents about St. Hunegund of France publicized Hunegund's miracles to create a sense of identity in Homblières and to raise money for the monastery? SL93 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it but believe that it's more important that Christine, the nominator, is happy. I took the hook as a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, it was an attempt at a summary but that's okay, I'm fine with the second hook as suggested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! —valereee (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/ChickClick

  • ... that American website ChickClick was owned by the same company who owned IGN?

Lullabying, I'm not seeing in the article where it says this? —valereee (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the fact. SL93 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Roosseno Soerjohadikoesoemo

Why is the credit nom subpage parameter showing a redirect from Template:Did you know nominations/Roosseno Soerjohadikoesomo? BlueMoonset (or anyone), does this need to be fixed? —valereee (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee From what I remember, the nom subpage link can be changed to Roosseno Soerjohadikoesoemo to stop the redirect. SL93 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
valereee, please replace the DYKmake line in the queue with the following line:
That will prevent the redirect. Many thanks. —BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

Gaia Octavia Agrippa A citation is needed for the War Medal fact in Angus McIntosh (linguist). SL93 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While not explicitly stated in the reference, by having been awarded the France and Germany Star and the Defence Medal, he will have also qualified for/received the War Medal. I've moved the reference to the end of the paragraph. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HOLO card

Queue 1

This is embarrassing because I wrote this hook as part of the nomination, but there's a typo in the approved hook:

... that the HOLO card is used to pay for fares on TheBus, and will be also be used for Honolulu's rail transit system?

That should read:

... that the HOLO card is used to pay for fares on TheBus, and will also be used for Honolulu's rail transit system?

Thank you in advance to whoever corrects my mistake. Musashi1600 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bourton-on-the-Water model village

Currently in Prep 6. If we're not running with the picture could we go with ALT1 instead? - Dumelow (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q7 July29a

Template:Did you know nominations/Cimoliopterus

FunkMonk JurassicClassic767 Tpdwkouaa Desertarun

To me the image doesn't read clear at all at the size. Any objection to switching to the other image? —valereee (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. It would be unusual to use the article makers own art, but I can see no reason why not. It would require a switch to Alt1 which I didn't check.Desertarun (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated at the nom page, I think the image of the sculptures actually mentioned in the hook should be shown. We can maybe try to make an alternate version that is clearer at smaller size. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could crop it and post it to this thread if you wish. Desertarun (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will see if I can do thar or find an alternate photo. The modern restoration isn't really relevant to the hook. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently in a queue to go on the main page the day after tomorrow, so you'll need to do this fairly quickly. Desertarun (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the issue is the foliage in the background that makes it hard to make the sculptures out? Here's an attempt at making them more visible by tweaking contrast and brightness:[5] Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been brightened and cropped. It looks good to me, I'd suggest you upload it to commons as an alternate version and post it to this thread. As this is now in a queue, only an admin can change the hook, so they'll want to see it as it'd appear on the main page. Desertarun (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The retouched version is on Commons here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can find the first half of ALT1 relating to 1851 but not the second half using the word "1980s"; it is in the lead but not the body. I think the information is going to be dotted around the article using 1981, 1985 etc. If we're going to switch to ALT1, for simplicity, I'd prefer the body to use the term "1980s" agreeing with the lead and second half of the hook. Desertarun (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in question is this: "In 1987, the German palaeontologist Peter Wellnhofer described the new crested pterosaur Tropeognathus from the Santana Formation of Brazil and noted the similarities between it and other newly described Brazilian taxa such as Anhanguera to English taxa that were based on fragmentary snouts, such as the various species assigned to Ornithocheirus. He concluded that while the appearance of the English taxa had long been a puzzle (leading for example to von Arthaber's unusual reconstructions), the discovery of the related and much better preserved Brazilian species made this clearer, showing that the English species too had premaxillary crests at the end of large, long skulls, though this had not been previously recognised.[22][1] When Anhanguera was described in 1985, it was thought to be the only pterosaur with such a crest known until that point (then referred to as a sagittal crest)." Surely, that can be condensed as "the 1980s"? We are mainly talking about the naming of Tropeognathus in 1987, and Anhanguera (pterosaur) in 1985. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with your explanation. I personally prefer ALT0 with the Crystal Palace sculptures, but ALT1 with your own artwork is also fine by me. Desertarun (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi valereee, there's a new version of the current picture here. Desertarun (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Desertarun! —valereee (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cimoliopterus models
Cimoliopterus models

Template:Did you know nominations/Sihayo kaXongo

Dumelow

I'm concerned that we're calling them definitely adulterous based on a 1965 source? I softened the language to 'alleged' in the article, removed adulterous in the hook, as I can't get to that source to see what it actually says. No objection to someone changing it back if the source actually seems to provide evidence. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi —valereee, thanks for the ping. Morris (1965) was the first modern study of the war and the first to incorporate Zulu oral histories. He is quite clear ""His Great Wife Kaqwelebana and another wife had started affairs with younger lovers, and while Sihayo was absent at Ulundi, Kaqwelebana's eldest son Mehlokazulu discovered what was going on". The fact is stated in more modern sources too:
  • "it was Sihayo's sons who had murdered his two adulterous wives" from page 116 of Greaves, Adrian (2005). Crossing the Buffalo: The Zulu War of 1879. London: Cassell. ISBN 978-0-3043-6725-2., similar wording in Greaves, Adrian (2012). Rorke's Drift. Orion. ISBN 978-1-78022-497-8. (page 34)
  • "fled to Natal with their lovers" from page 43 of Saul, David (2004). Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-670-91474-6.
  • "Two adulterous wives of inKosi Sihayo kaXongo of the Qungebe fled over the Mzinyathi River near Rorke’s Drift into Natal." from page 256 of Laband, John (2009). Historical Dictionary of the Zulu Wars. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-6300-2.
I've reverted back to the original wording in the article and added some of the newer sources to the statement. I thought it important to include "adulterous" in the hook as this was the "crime" for which they were executed. I wanted to be clear that these weren't random killings: the Zulu considered them to have been carried out in accordance with their law, whatever our modern opinions. Indeed the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, was somewhat bemused by the British creating such a fuss over the incident as the men had been careful to take the women back over the border to Zululand before killing them - 04:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Dumelow! I've added the reason for the execution back into the hook. I have commentary, but it's not pertinent to DYK so I'll take it to the article. :D —valereee (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks —valereee, please feel free to edit the article. Would be great to get wider input on it - Dumelow (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong hook pulled

In this edit to Queue 1, Schwede66 apparently intended to pull a hook, but accidentally removed the next one. Please replace the Phyllis Le Cappelaine Burke hook with: * ... that the second half of the '''[[2016 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl]]''' broke the record for the highest-scoring half in [[bowl game]] history?

The correct credit is already in place. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Will fix it. Schwede66 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

31 July date request

Hi all. Template:Did you know nominations/Police Anti-Terrorist Unit was approved for the 31st as a special date request but it seems to have been missed when Preps 4 and 5 were filled. Please could this be put into the set as asked? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Have picked ALT1 and it was just short of 200 characters. Schwede66 06:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations out of order

In Nominations awaiting approval WP:DYKN, those for 23 July appear between 15 and 16 July and there is an empty entry at the place where it should be. It looks to have been like this for a few days. You'll be relieved to hear I dare not try and sort this out. Thincat (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps referring to the date nominated?
Shortcut
The first sentence of the instructions say, "Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom." — Maile (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm referring to the date created. Have a look at the TOC of WP:DYKN (not the table of count of hooks) and you'll see. Thincat (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I dunno how a misplaced second section for that date ended up where it was, but it's taken care of now. Thanks for pointing it out. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thincat (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure it wasn't a misbehaving bot, so I tracked it down. A nominator created a new date section immediately after the "Current nominations" heading, instead of using the correct section that the bot had already created. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1036211040"