Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia: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 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
While we're at it, would it be a good idea to implement some kind of feature to both the DYK wizard and DYK helper that would warn nominators if the article they're nominating doesn't meet the seven day warning? It would not be a hard prohibition since the warning can still be ignored, and there are reasons where a nomination being late can still be accepted. It's just an idea that came to my mind given how we regularly get nominations, usually from DYK newcomers, for ineligible articles that were not new enough at the time of the nomination. DYKcheck already has such a check built in, would adding a similar check to the wizard be feasible? It might help cut down on the ineligible nominations (one recent example being Template:Did you know nominations/The Passenger (Boschwitz novel), which I just closed for that reason). Courtesy ping to SD0001. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is an extra day or two beyond the seven automatically allowed per the instructions, discouraging a nomination that goes to eight or nine could easily mislead someone unfamiliar with DYK rules. Although I suppose the warning could add that if they request the extra one or two days they can have them... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scripts currently ask the nominator to enter the date the expansion or creation occurred. The following warnings are already in place:
If they enter a date older than 8 days:
Yellow warning text: "Possibly ineligible as date is not within the past week"
On submitting: "The date specified is not within the past week, see WP:DYK#New. Are you sure you want to continue?" (OK/Cancel)
If they enter a date older than 10 days:
Red warning text: "Must be within the past week, see WP:DYK#New"
On submitting: "The date specified is well outside the past week, and hence the article is ineligible for DYK, see WP:DYK#New" (No option to proceed, unless they change the date.)
@SD0001 Are there already such warnings? I wasn't aware of them if they do exist. I was asking because, as I mentioned above, there are still nominations (usually made by DYK newcomers) for ineligible articles. If both the script and the wizard already have such warnings, then I'm not sure how they were able to make those nominations unless they made them manually without using either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the script just asks the user to enter the date – it doesn't check if the creation/expansion actually happened on that date. Moreover, the date field defaults to today. I suspect most users don't bother with changing it. – SD0001 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, the wizard and DYK helper referencing DYK check would probably be useful in weeding out the ineligible nominations. For example, if an article isn't a 5x expansion, both could warn the user if they were sure they want to nominate the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current wizard/helper is also currently unable to check if a nomination has multiple articles. For example, I've seen double nominations but the message below still says that the nominator needs only 1 QPQ instead of 2. That could possibly be fixed as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could we perhaps simply tweak the tool to not autofill the date field and produce an error message if no date is entered (maybe it already does that last part)? That way, editors would be forced to manually enter the date. Hopefully, that should lead them to think about the date. TompaDompa (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in #Queue 7: Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (nom) above, that article only passes the 1500 character prose length if you include the lead. I think we should be excluding the lead from the count, since by definition, the lead doesn't contain any "original prose"; it's just a summary of the rest of the article. We would need to modify @Shubinator's DYKcheck, but I assume that would be fairly trivial. RoySmith(talk)14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I get the sentiment of the proposal, it's something I'd oppose for reasons of fairness. There are articles on topics that simply wouldn't meet the length requirements otherwise, and such a policy could unintentionally strengthen our systemic biases especially when certain topics from underrepresented areas lack the wide coverage that the Anglosphere has. In addition, cases like the one you brought up are uncommon enough that, rather than a strict rule, it may be more practical to leave it to editor discretion. Indeed, that's what the guidelines actually used to say prior to Theleekycauldron's overhaul (there used to be a section that more-or-less said, paraphrased, "articles just above the 1500 character limit may still be rejected by editors for being too short.") There's also the case where sometimes, lead sections include information not mentioned elsewhere, so that could also cause issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to just increase the prose minimum to 2500 or 3000 characters. DYK articles often aren't super organised and do not always have separate lead sections. Also, for list-ish articles, the lead may summarise the list, not just other prose; why discount that? —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would go my most common tip for those just under a x5 expansion who didn't do much to the lead. I wouldn't object greatly to the principle, but a careful and well-done expansion of a lead is a genuinely important component of article expansion. CMD (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t support the proposal. One of the obvious implications is that it makes it harder to establish prose count. Short articles can already be rejected for various reasons; we don’t need rule creep here. Schwede6619:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t support the proposal. I agree with Scweede66. DYK has been the most accessible area of the main page. I fear that if we keep adding requirements and rules that will not he case any more. A lead is just good writing and some of our articles do not even have sufficient leads. I do not think this is a problem that needs solving but I appreciate the OP's concern. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is the most important part of an article because it is the part that gets most read and readers often don't go past it. In the mobile view, which is the most popular, all other sections are collapsed and many readers will not expand them or will do so selectively.
Because the editors who create articles have a different perspective, leads are often neglected and are typically too short, failing to summarise the article adequately. The proposal would tend to exacerbate this problem by giving DYK editors no credit for writing a good lead.
Instead, to reflect the importance of the lead, we should perhaps give double credit for its size.
As an example, consider the current top DYK – Israel Del Toro. The lead for this article does not say that the subject was a Paralympian and has won a gold medal for the shot put. This seems to be a significant omission.
I do not think extra credit for writing long leads would be beneficial for DYK articles. We should ask for decent leads during reviews (I have had reviewers call me out over one-sentence leads, but I don't know how many reviewers check this) but not mess with weighting lead/non-lead parts of the article differently. Is there really no appetite for even a slightly increased size requirement? —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Increasing the requirements for DYK, including requiring only GAs at DYK, is a proposal that has come up time and time again, and for multiple reasons has been quashed. Lightburst says it best in that DYK is the most accessible way for an article to show up on the main page. TFA, ITN, OTD, etc. are all much higher bars to get over, and very few will ever qualify for them. In addition, one of DYK's main goals has been to incentivize article creation and improvement: that's why there's the emphasis on new and recently-improved content. Raising the bar would open up a whole can of worms: it could discourage newer and less-experienced editors, and it could also worsen systemic bias, something that DYK already deals with. The status quo is not perfect, but increasing size requirements, either by making leads not count or by requiring longer articles, is probably not the solution. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we should be asking for compliant leads, whether or not they count, as they don't require that much work (the research has been done) and those that don't need them surely qualify as stubs. (I'd find increasing the size requirement to 2500 easier to support if I didn't currently have three noms at T:TDYK under that...)--Launchballer17:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and did some revisions to WP:DYKCOMPLETE: I replaced "compliant lead" with a more context-based explanation, and folded it more under the "fail to deal adequately with the topic" aspect. Speaking of that aspect, that seems to be the main point of DYKCOMPLETE, so I've moved it to near the start of the explanation and made it the main point backing up DYKCOMPLETE. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I do not see a true consensus to require "complaint leads" as the only one who suggested it is Launchballer and there's only one other support in Schwede66, so I would not oppose that mention being removed as lacking consensus. In any case, I think DYKCOMPLETE in its current form along with editor discretion should cover such cases already, rather than requiring a strict separate rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By 'a requirement', I meant 'policy', even if it wasn't being enforced. That number will almost certainly be enhanced by promoters seeing noms and passing on them; I see Airship's passed on at least signum and Earl de Grey, and I certainly wouldn't promote any of the three.--Launchballer11:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These articles seem ok to me for DYK purposes. They are short enough that people can read the whole article, so they do not need sections or a summary in form of a lead section. Given that mobile readers are only shown the zeroth section, it may actually be a better experience for them not to add a lead to these short articles. MOS:NOLEAD recommends section headings (and hence a dedicated lead section) for articles longer than around 400 or 500 words. Tamurbek Dawletschin is the only one of the three to have more than 400 words (446). Honestly, sections in an article close to our prose size limit of only 1500 bytes tend to look a bit silly. —Kusma (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a recent edit, the rules now state: Articles which ... have lead sections that do not adequately cover the article, are also likely to be rejected. In my view, that adequately captures what we should be presented with. And since MOS:NOLEAD talks about "400 or 500 words" before you should have a lead, that is hinting at an increase in the minimum prose requirement. All fine by me as 1500 bytes of readable prose can result in a rather stubby article. Schwede6600:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is basically a summary of the article. Therefore, it is generally alright for a lead not to have any sort of citations because that is expected in the main body of the article per MOS:LEADCITE. It's like when writing a conclusion, you summarise what you said earlier, except its at the top of the page, not the bottom. It's possible that articles either don't have a lead, or that's the only part of the article (ie, it isn't divided into subsections_. Sometimes, the lead section is no more than a few sentences long. Take a look at Fae Farm as an example (it just about meets the prose length criteria, but not the newness). Because of this, I oppose this suggestion of not including the lead when looking at the prose length of DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have DYK articles with a developed lead. If leads were excluded from the requirements, editors will avoid writing them, lowering the quality of articles at DYK. I would rather add the DYK requirement that articles with level 2 headings have to have a lead that summarises the main points of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this some thought, and for now I've removed the mention of leads at WP:DYKCOMPLETE, without prejudice against it being re-added later once this discussion settles and we have a clearer view of consensus. The primary concern I have is that what counts as a "comprehensive" or "compliant" lead will vary from article to article, and indeed MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that it should be on a case-by-case basis. If an article is very short, it can still benefit from a lede if a short one. The part about leads being suitable when an article is over 400 words is more of a guideline, but in practice it may be too high of a bar. It's essentially suggesting a higher bar than 1,500 characters, something which currently lacks consensus. This insistence on compliant ledes just seems like instruction creep. Instead, articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are likely to be rejected. seems like a decent catch-all for such cases, leaving it to editor discretion when leads are good enough or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any additional rule governing the lead might have some unintended effects. For example, if the lead no longer counted toward an article's length, some editors might be inspired to write a super-short lead (or none at all). It would also make it more difficult to ascertain how much an article was expanded, especially if the article did not previously have any sections besides the topmost section. Conversely, a lead that counted for double its character count would encourage people to write extremely long leads. Epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this proposal doable to begin with? I always use the "page size" tool to check article sizes (both for new articles, and to compare versions in expanded articles). The tool measures all the article prose at once, but excluding stuff that's not meant to be measured (image captions, section titles, lists, references section, etc). Of course, we can always cut and paste the article minus the lead in some external tool to count characters and manually remove the stuff that should not be counted, but that seems way more complicated in comparison to the current tool, and may only lead to potential reviewers simply giving up. Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to measure minus the lead (or otherwise isolate a certain part of the article), delete the parts you don't want in the editor and run the page size tool on the resulting preview. No need for an external tool. (Although still relatively a faff compared to just clicking the one button.) CMD (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem that I'm pointing to in my first comment above. It's way too complex for inexperienced editors to determine prose count when you have to exclude the lead. Schwede6619:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the new QPQ rule in place, I've been trying to get them done more quicker than I have before. I nominated four on September 6 with the intention of doing the QPQs within the next three days, because offline work has made it difficult to do everything on time (see e.g. yesterday my only contribution besides a talk page comment was providing a QPQ). As today is the third day, I started first thing by doing QPQs for the remaining two (Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly (second nomination), Template:Did you know nominations/Fadi Aldeeb), only to notice that they had been closed shortly before for not providing a QPQ. Could these please be re-opened? BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to this, and a suggestion I've made multiple times, is to make the QPQ before making the nomination. Either that or reviewing nominations even without having open or planned nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the days since BeanieFan11 nominated Lewis Manly and Fadi Aldeeb to DYK, they started or made significant contributions to Ben Sandilands, Jamie Sheriff, Naibys Morillo, Teleke Lauti, Ion Basoc, Chris Smith (defensive tackle), and Bryant Wesco. This is time that could have been spent reviewing a QPQ. As a prolific DYK nominator, BeanieFan11 knows that a QPQ is required. Editors, including myself, have pinged BeanieFan11 on many previous nominations asking them to complete a QPQ. I marked Lewis Manly for closure because it was a day late and the QPQ was not complete: by not prioritising completing the QPQ, I thought it was inappropriate to give BeanieFan11 another exception to the 7-day limit. My personal opinion is that if BeanieFan11 wants to continue nominating DYKs, they should choose to limit their article editing to complete QPQs and prioritise fulfilling the DYK nomination requirements. Z1720 (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reject Manly, then ok. But I don't see the need or any benefit of rejecting Aldeeb (by Naruto), since minutes afterwards they began giving reminders (i.e. not rejecting) noms for other editors over three days (e.g. here) – feels arbitrary. I question if that QPQ discussion truly came out with a consensus to require immediate failure of everything not immediately providing QPQ with no reminders; the informal proposal was proposing seven days (not immediate), and by my count (from a quick reading), I don't see more support for immediate versus seven days (for seven days (or more): leeky (prop.), JuniperChill, AirshipJungleman29, Epicgenius, Narutolovehinata5(?), BeanieFan11, Kusma; for immediate: RoySmith, SL93, Viriditas, Valereee, Z1720, Vanadmone93, Sohom; not sure: BlueMoonset, CMD, Launchballer, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gerda Arendt.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I closed Fadi Aldeeb early rather than giving a reminder was because I already gave you a similar warning before regarding the rule change. You were already aware of it at that point and should have followed it. The other editors I pinged were mostly those who may not have been aware of the rule change and thus needed to be informed about it. Any future transgressions will probably not be treated lightly, meaning that they too could have their nominations closed without warning if they continue to do it. The rules already allow for incomplete nominations to be closed without warning, and it was within my discretion to do so. Warning the editor is now more of a courtesy rather than a requirement.
In addition, the nomination had already been open for three days at that point, which is more than enough time to do a QPQ in the meantime. Being late by a day would be understandable, but being late by that long is probably too much. Z1720 is right above in that if there was enough time to improve other articles, there was surely enough time to do the necessary QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would not support any form of "make up" to allow the closed nominations to be reopened. It was the nominator's responsibility to make sure that their nominations were eligible. Just as nominations may be failed if they are not long or new enough, a nomination without a QPQ is also considered an incomplete nomination and is liable for closure. You were given sufficient warnings with your previous nominations, as well as being aware of and even participating in the discussion that resulted in the rule change. It was your responsibility, not ours, to provide the QPQ, and thus also your responsibility for the nominations being failed. As I mentioned above, my suggestion would be to make reviews before nominating articles, ideally reviewing articles even when you're currently not working on any of your own. That's what I do: I review noms regardless if I have an active nomination or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what happens if a nominated article is slightly short? The editor will be notified and given a chance to expand it. What if it is slightly not new enough? WP:DYKG still allows it to be promoted if in the best interest of DYK. Are there any issues with the article, or would this have been a perfectly valid DYK – and likely a good one (given the interest in Palestine) – that was denied arbitrarily just because the 'QPQ was a bit late'? For any other fixable issue with the nom users are given a chance to correct it – why should QPQ be the only criterion where zero tolerance whatsoever is given? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In sympathy because BeanieFan11 is such a prolific DYK participant. BeanieFan11 is helpful and courteous, and always eventually gets the qpp in. It feels like we are making an example of BeanieFan11 and I am not sure we should. I think BeanieFan11 can learn this lesson without cancelling the nominations. Just my two cents. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal to just take the work to GAN. I think that's a reasonable solution. That way, they will get a second chance for DYK later on. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think you should get a second chance, but not a third. That's just me, however, and others might think I'm being too lenient. But we really need to encourage people to submit QPQs before they nominate. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was actually the primary deciding factor for me. Even before the rule change, BeanieFan11 had a history of providing QPQs late. If this had just been a one-time issue, perhaps leniency could have been granted. As it stands, with it being a recurring issue, enough leniency had already been given up to this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an analogy would be useful here. When evaluating unblock requests, what most admins are looking for is fundamentally two things. 1) Does the editor understand what they did that got them in trouble in the first place. 2) Have they given a credible assurance that it won't happen again. I'm not seeing the first one here; BeanieFan is still in excuse mode: the rule wasn't validly enacted, what if somebody else did this, you're being arbitrary in applying the rule, it was only a little bit late, other people are getting a break so I should too, etc.
Contrast with @Toadboy123's response at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Edward_J._York, where he wasn't aware of the new rule, apologized for causing a problem, and committed to complying with the new rule going forward. If we got the same from Beanie, I'd be willing to draw a line in the sand, say that whatever happened in the past is in the past, and going forward everything will be good. But I'm not willing to do that if it looks like we'll just be back here next week with a different excuse. RoySmith(talk)23:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that I've taken too long in the past; in my initial comment I stated With the new QPQ rule in place, I've been trying to get them done more quicker than I have before. I'm not sure I can guarantee that every single one will be done immediately, given real life circumstances (I'll try to generally do it, though); would it be acceptable to have a maximum of, say, two days? (in alignment with The seven-day limit can be extended for a day or two upon request.) – Since after all, the proposal that led to the change was for seven. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, there is one solution that could work with the current rules: reviewing open nominations even if you do not have any open nominations of your own. That way, you can build up a stash of QPQs that you can use when the time comes, so that once you have a nomination you do not need to rush anymore. You already have a QPQ in the backlog. This is a suggestion I've made so many times here, one that has multiple benefits such as discouraging late QPQs and also helping cut down the backlog, and I'm still shocked that it isn't being suggested or encouraged more.
Too many chances have been given, and as RoySmith suggested above, granting another exception when it's a recurring issue (and indeed, one factor in why the rule change was proposed in the first place) would make the rule toothless. It should also be noted that, even with the mention of two days, it wouldn't have mattered as both nominations were closed after three days, so a two-day maximum would have resulted in closure anyway. In practice, I imagine that reviewers will use their discretion to give nominators sufficient warning to do the QPQ, but if the nomination ends up being closed for lack of a QPQ, that is a failure to meet DYK responsibilities. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: In the comment above I pointed out that you edited seven articles after the Manly and Aldeeb DYK nominations were created. Why did you prioritise creating articles over completing the QPQs? Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Well, at the time I figured I likely wouldn't have had a chance to do many of those articles otherwise (several had just won Paralympic medals, some of the others had breakout football games)... but I admit I should have placed more focus on the QPQs. I apologize for that and for how long I've taken in the past. I won't wait that long again – could I just have one more chance with these two? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this had been a one-off, I'd be more sympathetic towards a last chance. However, with your long history of late QPQs, a history that dates back to before the rule change, the line has to be drawn. It sucks for nominations to fail, we've all been there, but as DYK contributors, the important thing is to learn from setbacks and move one. Those nominations failing is not meant to be representative of your contributions to DYK, and there will always be plenty of opportunities to contribute other articles if not those specific ones. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that Fantasy is the longest-duration topless production in Las Vegas at a single venue?
Hm. Source in article is from 2016 so no good for "is". According to a 2023 source provided in the nom, the show moved to a different location due to COVID, so this does not seem to be correct. Pinging nom @Cunard and promoter @BorgQueen (can't ping the IP reviewer). —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantasy has been performed at Luxor Las Vegas since it opened in 1999 (including the temporary move in 2021 to a bigger theater in the same hotel owing to COVID-19). That is what I meant by "a single venue". I don't think moving from one theater to another theater in the same hotel makes the statement inaccurate, but maybe there's a way to make it clearer in the hook. Cunard (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to let it pass, although the article is a but ambiguous about whether the "venue" is the hotel or one of the theaters inside it. —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Philippine government tried to force two kidnapped activists to confess to being rebels at a press conference, but they had other plans?
They had other plans is a strange way to say they tried to expose the government. According to the article, they were supposed to be the people the rebels would surrender too ("surrenderees") but perhaps that is just a misprint. In any case, this is quite confusing to me and I'm not happy to sign off on this without some discussion. Ping creator Ryomaandres, nom TheNuggeteer, reviewer User:Crisco 1492, promoter AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebel returnees is saying, perhaps poorly, that they returned to the government fold. The article indicates that they were expected to self-identify as members of the New People's Army, one of the belligerents in the ongoing Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines, but they chose instead to expose the coercion they experienced.
I think there is still some copyediting in the article to do (I still don't understand who surrendered to the two activists), and we need a rephrased and clearer hook. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it was standard elsewhere; simply put, the article reflected the sources ("rebel surrenderer" gives me half the results of surrenderee). As for the "had other ideas", I signed off on it as we have previously had examples of less encyclopedic phrasing for hooks ("that mamas performed on "Mama", which admittedly did have an ERRORS discussion); I also signed off on the more explicit hook, which was not promoted — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about
... that two kidnapped activists were released after claiming at a press conference that they were abducted by government forces?
Given the date of creation of the artwork, it would be fine as long as there wasn't a copyright notice on the work or any associated plaque/signage - is that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new to DYK and interested in creating a DYK after seeing the DYK by the Burmese editor Hybernator. However, I don't know how to create a DYK simply and find the process may be complex. Could you please let me know if there are any tools to make creating a DYK easier? Thanks! Hteiktinhein (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 22. We have a total of 306 nominations, of which 145 have been approved, a gap of 161 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Serekunda I found some close paraphrasing issues. The nominator has made some edits to address them, but I am unsure if the problem is resolved. It would be helpful to receive another opinion if I am being too cautious, and/or direct copyediting I can sign off on as a reviewer. (The source is on the nom page.) Thanks, CMD (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an interesting discussion at WP:ERRORS about the current hook
... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels, making him one of the most prolific writers in the world?
The hook has been trimmed now but the discussion was illuminating. In particular, notice that there was a DYK nomination for the list of prolific writers in 2011.
The discussion has been zapped at WP:ERRORS now so here's what you may have missed. One thing I'm still wondering is who is the most prolific author of DYKs?
There have been discussions on WT:DYK about the need to move to move away from superlatives. This seems a good example, the fact is the "hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels", the "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" is just vague puffery not adding much. CMD (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions encompassed all superlatives, they started because of the identification of claims that didn't seem true. At any rate, the sources in this case are "which must be reckoned among the highest outputs ever on a world scale", which is a statement that pretty much says it is not the result of an analysis, and a second source of which the closest text I can find to supporting the claim is "a lifetime of unparalleled productivity". The article body text from this was "arguably one of the most prolific writers worldwide", which became "one of the most prolific in world literature" in the lead and "one of the most prolific writers in the world" in the DYK, losing a small caveat at each step. CMD (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those discussions were around being "the first", which people sometimes have doubt whether the author only considered their country or the Western world. "One of the" gives more leeway, as it's ambiguous what percentile is referred to. —Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, leeway to indicate the definite fact is not known. The article states the fact supporting the status of "the most prolific writer in Poland" (a smaller corpus than the world) is calculated "by the number of published editions of his works", which is an unexpected way to define it, as presumably each edition is not a whole new work of writing, especially not the ones after the author's death. CMD (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, Bagumba:) I had criticised the hook for speaking only of quantity but nothing came up, - with no image we don't even get a hint at his period. We could cut the claim, - 200 novels should be impressive enough for those who don't care about content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem here. The sources verify the fact, and they are high quality sources. This just seems like an "I don't like it" complaint rather than an actual issue.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording for the rest is fine, remove "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" and the remaining hook is a definite (and impressive) fact. CMD (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts, saying the same) The "fact" - in many words - is rather redundant to the high number, almost no surprise (at least to me). - Hook possibility: just have the question mark after "novels", in case of doubt what I meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hook in question is:
... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels, making him one of the most prolific writers in the world?
... that while some prolific authors use pen and paper or typewriters, Philip M. Parker has used a computer to write more than 200,000 books?
So, that's a thousand times more than Kraszewski. There have been lots of authors who wrote hundreds of books without computer assistance including: Barbara Cartland (700+ books); Isaac Asimov (470+ books); Ryoki Inoue (1,000+ books); L. Ron Hubbard (1,000+ books)... The latter holds the Guinness World Record and so has a good claim to the title. Kraszewski is just an also-ran and so we should remove the claim, shortening the hook to:
... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels?
I've looked at that list before and wondered where I stood in the rankings (my count is ~180). I found that I wasn't in the list because it is not maintained automatically and so it is not complete. Perhaps there are other prolific DYKers who haven't been added? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, I just took a look... DYK Bot says I have 679 nominations, and only 613 are identified on that page. Given I was retired for seven years, I'd hazard to say that the list is woefully out of date. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in the most prolific reviewers, promoters, and queuers(?) of DYK. I believe there is a tool to check individual promotions, but am unaware of if there area any aggregate stats. (Okay, reviewers may differ very little to DYKs due to QPQs, but the other two seem worth separately celebrating.) CMD (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, if I recall correctly, my edits to NextPrep were fixes when promoting admins forgot to increment it after moving a prep to a queue. This has fortunately disappeared as an issue now that automated tools are used for prep to queue promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[...] so substantially impactful users such as BorgQueen were too early for this list to accurately display their contributions. Thanks for the courtesy mention. I'm certainly one of the ancients, perhaps from the mist of prehistory... BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, DYK templates from the DYK script are inserted onto talkpages with the inclusion of the "Template:" aspect, eg. {{Template:Did you know nominations/Baguia Fort}} This seems nonstandard behaviour, and can confuse bots slightly. Is there a specific reason templates are not simply transcluded as {{Did you know nominations/Baguia Fort}}? CMD (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember asking this very same question years ago. As I remember, the answer was something like, "because wiki".
It is unfortunately very difficult to figure out the canonical title of a linked page. In addition to the implied namespace issue, there's case-insensitivity, redirects, namespace aliases (i.e. "WT:" vs "Wikipedia talk:"), cross-wiki links (which look like namespaces but are implemented in some way that I don't fully understand), optional character encodings (User_talk:RoySmith vs User talk:RoySmith, and probably more stuff. I think the only real way to canonicalize a link is to get it from the API and then look to see what you got. RoySmith(talk)18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya; I realize this is a wildly tight turnaround and thus a big ask, so if it can't be done, no worries. But I was wondering if it'd be possible to run the now approved hook for Des Moines speech on its 83rd anniversary, September 11 (and thus as part of Template:Did_you_know/Queue/1). I realize that's only hours away, so if it can't happen, no worries, and it can just run whenever it ends up running. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that it is too late for the the same anniversary day of the September 11 Attacks, but it would be nice if September 11 Digital Archive could be featured in the next few days. ―Panamitsu(talk)
... that the creator of Ani ni Aisaresugite Komattemasu ensured a happy ending by not making the main characters blood relatives?
How does this pass WP:DYKFICTION? Merely mentioning the author doesn't make it not focused on the fictional aspect. (Compare, say, "... that JRR Tolkien ensured a happy ending of The Lord of the Rings by making the ring susceptible to being thrown in lava?") (Pinging Lullabying, Crisco 1492 as nom and reviewer respectively). ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why I didn't get the ping, but I consider it information about the writing process rather than the content qua content (that applied to all of the ALTs on that nom; one was about the process of naming a character, and one was related to publication schedule rushing the story). Pinging AirshipJungleman29, who promoted the specific hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "interesting" part of the hook is the characters not being blood relatives, which is fictional content. There's no real-world connection outside of saying "the author decided", and if we could just throw in some variation of "the author decided" for every fictional work - because every fictional work has an author who decides what goes in it - there would be no point having DYKFICTION. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the lines can be blurry, but there's nuance involved and this is one of those cases where the real-world connection is there and the focus is on a real-life fact. The hook fact isn't about the happy ending itself, it's about the author making said ending. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree if the hook elaborated on her thinking or her writing process, but it doesn't, it's entirely about the fictional content. All fictional works have authors, and all authors make decisions about their content. If it doesn't fail DYKFICTION, then it fails DYKINT on the basis that simply making editorial decisions in and of themselves are not interesting.
Consider the following: "that the creator of Ani ni Aisaresugite Komattemasu ensured a happy ending by having the main characters kiss". This hook would also, by your reading, be about the author making that ending. But it's not interesting, is it? No. Why not? Because characters kissing in a romance isn't unusual or interesting. So the thing we're relying on in our current hook to pass DYKINT is the characters not being related, which is part of the fiction, so it fails DYKFICTION. The thing we're leaning on to create interest can't be the fictional thing, because anything can happen in fiction. ♠PMC♠ (talk)01:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now in queue 5. I can see PMC's point regarding DYKfiction, but there is a little real world connection in making something that looks like an incest story not an incest story. I'm not sure whether that needs to be more explicit. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would work, as any other folklore society would have been founded in the few decades beforehand (the concept itself was only invented in the 1840s). I can't access the cited page of this source, but its introduction calls the society "the first official organization with "folklore" in its name", and mentions the "Folksong Research Society", founded in 1920. Some adjustment might be needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen and Dumelow: I can only hope the IP who promoted the hook is watching this because I can't ping them. The hook isn't wrong per-se, but it seems overly complicated and it doesn't even say anything about the subject; it says something about how a newspaper mis-reported something about the subject. RoySmith(talk)21:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that the uniform of the Hong Kong contingent of the Submarine Mining Service was designed by future British Army Lieutenant-General George Macdonogh(pictured)?
You could add "silk-like" before "uniform" to add a little more interest
Otherwise:
ALT2: ... that the British Army's Submarine Mining Service defended ports and harbours with naval mines and torpedoes?
ALT3: ... that the British Army's Submarine Mining Service "was remarkable for the cheapness and efficiency of its organisation"?
ALT4: ... that the British Army's Submarine Mining Service was supplanted in the harbour defence role by the introduction of Royal Navy submarines?
ALT5: ... that Hong Kong's Submarine Mining Service detachment amount to around 0.1% of the total cost of garrisoning the colony?
That's probably fair, though I'd suggest "nobody knows how many beetles there are" is closer to "nobody knows how many grains of sand there are" -- it's a triviality rather than a disputable statement. The cited source has Estimates of the size of the major insect orders in New Zealand, as compared with the British Isles, ... are greatly variable and subject to different interpretations ... The number of species of Coleoptera is about 80% greater than the British fauna. This is ... likely to be, in part, due to what can be called the "Broun effect" We could find a way to put that more succinctly? Perhaps "has been blamed for inflating the number of beetle species in New Zealand"?
Alternatively, we have some ALTs from the nomination:
ALT1: ... that the entomologist Thomas Broun fought in three wars and was awarded medals by two different countries?
I disagree. The source in question is: "It has 15 rooms, a circular staircase in the grand foyer, period tiles and brass tubs in the bedrooms, chandeliers, stained glass windows, a rotunda or cupola, used for cooling, a metal-lined cold storage room in the kitchen, an 1870s iron stove, an oval-shaped dining room with curved doors, sitting parlors with bay windows, and a library with oak paneling and huge brick fireplace." As per WP:LIMITED, there are few ways to repeat a list of items and still remain true to the meaning of what is included. Flibirigit (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith The last that I can find is 95% contained from a month ago after searching through news archives. I doubt that 95% is even up to date and I think that it should be fully contained by now. I feel like it should be pulled for it not being up to date alone. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Looking at it closer, I see statements like The Durkee Fire is the second-largest wildfire currently burning in the United States and (in the infobox) July 17, 2024 – present (58 days). I'm going to pull it. RoySmith(talk)23:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Panetta, the nominator appears to be requesting a nine-day timeframe for newness of the nomination, with the rationale that it was made in good faith to say thank you to another editor for cleaning up copyright violations. I will respect the community's decision on this. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but the DYK-helper/DYK-wizard tools aren't correctly calculating the number of QPQs needed for multi-article nominations. For example, Template:Did you know nominations/Niederdollendorf stone includes three bold-linked articles, but the DYK-wizard tool generated text saying that only one QPQ is needed. I think this should be changed to reduce confusion, if that's possible. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.
As Template:Did you know is not a typical template (arguably the page is in the wrong namespace), I don't understand the need for a template documentation subpage (if you ask me we could just delete Template:Did you know/doc, which seems pointless cruft). We need to minimise human (and bot) errors while editing, so anything that is added should be actually useful. Even if a documentation subpage does get added, I would strongly advise against the suggestion to add
DYK has extensive documentation already. I see zero advantage for DYK in adhering to conventions for template space, as DYK should not be in template space. Just like article space rules do not apply to Main Page, another page that is in the wrong namespace for historical reasons. We should add categories if we need them, not in order to make a database report prettier. —Kusma (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The DYK template structure is indeed a mess and should be cleaned up, but that needs to be done by a careful analysis of how the process works, not to satisfy some spurious problem in a database report generator. RoySmith(talk)13:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, SL93, AirshipJungleman29, Rjjiii, Kimikel, Premeditated Chaos, Sohom Datta, TheNuggeteer, and NightWolf1223: In light of me really not wanting to fix this bug on its own, I've rolled out PSHAW 2.0, an update I've working on in my userspace for quite a while! not much changes on your end for now – you'll still only have the prep building script and the queuer script (there is a hook puller script that is very close to done) – on my end, the script is much easier for me to read and update. you might find new and interesting bugs, so please do keep me abreast of those either here on on my talk :) thanks! (ugh i gotta update documentation now...) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly one of the ancients, perhaps from the mist of prehistory... BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Done
