Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Error reports

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 5 filled queues – all good, for now!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 16:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 16 hours ago(

)

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202

• 2011 reform proposals
• 2020 RFC LT Solutions
• All RfCs
• Removed hooks: 2023–24

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

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

Approaching 12-hour backlog mode?

DYK is currently at 143 approved nominations (manually counted) and 6/7 full prep areas. WP:DYKROTATE says that If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day..

We're currently at the point that if 2 prep areas were promoted to queues (AND THEN filled with approved nominations) we'd have 10 full queues/prep areas and still have 126 approved nominations. Are we approaching 12 hour backlog mode? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder that, but the problem is the prep to queue bottleneck.--Laun chba ller 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah definitely. Based on what I've seen from the template, ideally there are 4 or more queues at any one time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's a lot of work and not enough admins to do it. It takes me a minimum of 20 minutes to process a set. That's for the rare set where I don't find any problems. Every issue I find adds to that, so 30 minutes is probably a better average. And when I write up a problem, I'm signing up to some additional commitment of time over the next few days to track the resolution. What we need is more admins working at DYK, and there just aren't enough admins to go around. I'd love to see some of our more experienced DYK regulars show up at WP:RfA. RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. Nobody can fault the admins for volunteering their time by processing sets, and at the same time there's a record low number of admins. And I can't say that there's any kind of quick fix for this other than getting more admins lol DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or reduce the number of hooks per queue. Levivich (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich per your request to be pinged. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The automated DYK counter updated to show 121 approved nominations, and I just brought it down to 120 by promoting another one. This could be solved by admins promoting more preps to queues, rather than going to backlog mode. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to not be counting the most recent days. I still vote on updating queues more often and closing older nominations that aren't going anywhere. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. If admins only ever update 1 queue per day then we're permanently stuck on 2 queues and 6 prep areas, and if that's the case then we never meet the threshold for 12-hour mode DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this seems crass, but perhaps I could note here that I've not yet understood that both "there is an overabundance of approved DYK nominations" and "we cannot raise the editorial standards for DYK because we wouldn't have enough engagement" are held to be true simultaneously. Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the second argument be based on engagement, it's more a matter of debate over subjective standards of quality and nominators feeling hard done by. CMD (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the case of nominators getting very upset when their nominations are challenged, making reviewers more reluctant to reject nominations outright. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. And some of the worst offenders are our biggest contributors who really should know better. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, we should be willing to reject nominations more forcefully. The issue is that, sometimes, nominators have far more energy than reviewers, leading to reviewers yielding rather than holding their ground. The asking for a second reviewer, while usually done in good faith, sometimes just makes things worse and prolongs the agony. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should formalise a role for experienced and trusted DYK reviewers/promoters who are allowed to reject nominations at their editorial discretion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical that such a thing would work. Even when editorial discretion is already baked into the rules, it's not uncommon for nominators to oppose reviews or decisions. I don't think making certain editors "trusted" would solve the problem when the elephant in the room is simply that some nominators are stubborn regarding their nominations and/or hooks. The way I see it, the solution to the problem would be a cultural change, for example being willing to accept rejections, or discouraging things like forum shopping or asking for second opinions over disagreements regarding hook interest (unless of course absolutely necessary or warranted). Of course, that is much easier said than done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we could avoid breaching the template transclusion limits. I am not currently able to offer much help with p2q promotions, so I can't in good conscience suggest to go to 12-hour rotations. The other way to reduce the backlog would be to tighten the timeout rules. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone techy know if PEIS is affected by the use of Template:DYK checklist. If it is, would there be harm in a bot substituting it for direct code on approved nominations? CMD (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 125 approved nominations and 9 full queues, plus the last queue which we have to leave 4 hooks empty for. Is it time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on this is what it always is: 12 hour turnover is a disaster. It burns people out and increases our error rate. It's never a good idea. I certainly have no plans to participate. RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your opinion then maybe we should think about modifying the policy. Perhaps there are ways of decreasing the backlog without sacrificing quality DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see us drop it entirely. And, yes, the way to decrease the backlog is to not be afraid of declining substandard submissions. RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the switchover should take place when there would be 120 approved hooks if all of the preps and queues were full. DYK has not reached that threshold yet. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a useful safety valve. One of the reasons there's a minimum requirement to switch to twice-a-day of ten completely filled queues and preps after the midnight promotion along with 120 or more approved noms awaiting promotion is that it's such a high bar, and that by definition you have a backlog that allows running at twice a day for a little while. It's a quick way to reduce the effective backlog by dozens of hooks. We can certainly modify the point at which we switch back if continuing would cause too much stress, though what we have now—reverting back to one a day at any point when after midnight there are fewer than six full queues and preps—would seem to keep us from kneecapping ourselves if prep sets aren't being built with enough frequency. There's a GAN backlog drive starting up next Tuesday, so even though as I write this we're finally not in PEIS-land any more. (Note to CMD: DYK checklist is causing a lot of our PEIS problems; it's a lot of text being expanded, and more and more people have been using it. However, unless the text generated at subst time is less than that generated by the template itself, doing the subst shouldn't help reduce the total character count. Writing out a review in one's own words, making sure to cover what you've looked at, is more efficient when it comes to page size.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My admittedly not full understanding of PEIS is that any nested template multiplies its impact (somehow), so even with the same characters it would make a difference. CMD (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that when we went from 8 to 9 hooks, we effectively slowed the rate at which the backlog grew by between half and two thirds. I propose that the gap between 60 and 120 also shrinks accordingly, to maybe 75 and 100. 12-hour sets is a quick and very dirty way of running lots of noms and I suggest that one way to make it less painful would be to do them for shorter periods.--Laun chba ller 01:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the aim is a short period and the requirement is "ten completely filled queues and preps", why not have it activate for literally just five days? That would make it a safety valve, would rely on the review quality achieved during normal backlog rates, and provide a simple and clear end date without needing to recalculate the minimum. CMD (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, require seven filled queues (and no specific prep quota) before you start, and go for a fixed three days. That at least guarantees that no matter what happens in the way of promotions (or lack thereof), you know you've got enough material to make it through the sprint. If that turns out not to be enough, you can run another sprint after you've refilled the queues. The important thing is putting the material in the bank ahead of time instead of a frantic scramble to keep up while the clock is running. RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. CMD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could start at any midnight if the seventh queue has just been promoted and there are six filled queues left, and go for three days. Having the post-midnight changeover is best; it will typically give us more time to move special occasion hooks around as needed within the queues or into the queues, though only admins will be able to take care of that particular task; fortunately, anyone can move things around within the already waiting preps. Question: if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day (restart the three-day countdown), or is it a set three-day thing that must run down (and switch back for at least day?) before starting up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to have the sprint be a fixed 3 days, if for no other reason than it will lend stability to SOHA scheduling. RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it may not be necessary just yet as there are still preps that haven't been moved to Queue. I really don't like these two-sets-a-day thing as it's grossly unfair to most nominators, but if it has to be done it really should be a last resort and not a first one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that 12 hours on the main page is "grossly unfair" seems bizarre to me; of course, I came up in the day when 12 hours was a long time, and 8 hours was more common. Sometimes, sacrifices are needed for the greater good, and half a day isn't unreasonable in my view, just like an extra QPQ isn't unreasonable from old DYK hands when we get a problematic surplus of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming back to DYK and wondering when it moved from six hours to 24. Anyway, any change shouldn't be seen as changing the use case for the 12-hour backlog mode, it will remain a last resort. However, this change may be a way to make that last resort more predictable and palatable. Whenever the option of a 12 hour backlog run has been raised since the last one ended in April, it has received a lot of (quite valid) pushback due to the current implementation. CMD (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we're pretty close to consensus to change WP:DYKROTATE to read:

DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues sets, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.

Regarding @BlueMoonset's question ("if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day"), the algorithm described above does have some strange behavior if at the end of three days we've still got six filled queues and 120 approved hooks. As written, we'd go back to one per day and then immediately go back to two per day, but I think that situation is incredibly unlikely to happen so I'd say we keep the rule simple and rely on intelligent human beings to figure out how to handle exceptional situations when they occur. RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a change of WP:DYKROTATE to read as above DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the mechanics, the wording seems to suggest the default seems to shift to two sets a day once the criteria are met. I am not opposed given the criteria being met should be definition make that painless, but we should ensure that is an intentional outcome, and perhaps figure out some note about special holding area hooks that need shifting. CMD (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we want to keep humans in the loop when deciding to switch. But, the current wording also suggests an automatic cutover and yet we still end up haggling over it each time, so I'm not too worried that the humans will get disenfranchised. Somebody still has to make a manual edit to (um, I forget exactly where) so I imagine the way this would work is some admin would post here, "Hey guys, we've met the WP:DYKROTATE requirements, so if there's no objection, I'm going to switch over right after midnight".

But, that does remind me that we don't seem to have the actual procedure documented anywhere. We should add that to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions and DYKROTATE should link to that. RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given you were the last person to make a change, if you've forgotten we do need the documentation! If you are happy the wording keeps humans in the loop, I am happy. CMD (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder :-) I've updated the instructions. How about for the policy statement:

DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.

Instructions for effecting the switch are at WP:DYKAI#Switching update interval. Admins planning to make a switch should alert the DYK community by posting their intentions to WT:DYK in advance. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get creative indeed. I think this policy change keeps the spirit of the idea while making it easier to implement, I haven't thought of a strong point of caution yet. If there are no objections, let's go ahead. CMD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's try this. I hope the automatic "revert to 1/day" will make us admins a bit less averse to filling the queues out of fear of the 2/day stress. —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted

I haven't seen any opposition so I've gone ahead and updated the WP:DYKROTATE policy statement. We're currently at 263 approved hooks, so it'll probably take us 2 or 3 sprints to get back below the 200 hook threshold. Hopefully this new process will be easier on everybody since we'll be attacking it in manageable chunks. RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: pinging to alert admins who haven't been following this long thread. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Worth giving a chance, I guess. It'll be interesting to see how fast we get right back to the same place, though. I can remember when we were in two-a-days with too little admin help for months at a time. I'm not going to risk burning out again, it was too unpleasant. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're still around 130 approved hooks, not twice that; 263 would have been the total number of hooks (unapproved and approved combined) when you posted, RoySmith, omitting the seven approved hooks that aren't currently transcluding, so 270 (and now 275). It'll be interesting to see whether we get overloaded once the GAN backlog drive kicks in on Tuesday. Right now, under the just-superseded rules, we'd need to load up eleven of fourteen preps and queues prior to midnight to meet that minimum to switch over to twice a day, and that would take us down to around 100 approved hooks, too few to do the switch. Interestingly, if the six fliled preps were all promoted to queue in the next 23 hours, we'd be heading into twice a day. (I somehow doubt there's going to be a mass promotion, though one or two sets would be nice to allow for more prep building.)BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're still around 130 approved hooks. Interesting. Thanks for the correction. I went to Template talk:Did you know/Approved and looked at the bottom line of "Count of DYK Hooks" table. I assumed since I was on the "approved hooks" page, the column labeled "# of Hooks" meant "# of Approved Hooks". I guess what it really means is the sum of the approved and unapproved hooks? And I guess "# Verified" means "# Approved"?

I've always found that table confusing because its not clear what it means. I remember I once asked why one part of the table is highlighted in red and somebody explained it to me, but I've since forgotten because it's not written down anywhere. It would be useful if somebody could add some documentation to that table explaining it all. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about this discussion. So basically, based on the new rules, around when will we expect the switch to happen? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not still mistaken, the only thing holding us back now is that we don't have seven filled queues (looking furtively in @BlueMoonset's direction for confirmation). RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Maybe this is just me being a little selfish, but the reason I was asking is because I have a hook that's going to go up in a few days and I was wondering if it will be caught in the two-sets-a-day thing. Due to timing reasons my hooks often end up being caught in such sprints, so I was hoping to avoid it being the case this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we don't have all seven queues filled at the same time, and that it what's holding us back. There doesn't seem to be any immediate urgency or desire by admins to fill queues; we have only one filled at the moment, although there continue to be enough preps available for promotion. And to confirm: "Verified" = "Approved" in that table. The same table is printed on both the Nominations and Approved pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanatory footnote to WP:DYKROTATE stating how the count is specified. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question, I glanced though the discussion so my apologies if I missed it, with this backlog "sprint" structure, would last years "emergency backlog mode double review" policy come into effect, or are we trying to avoid that?--Kev min § 16:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to target different issues. The 3-day backlog sprint manages a glut in approved noms, a double review manages a glut in unapproved noms. CMD (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

Europapa

@DimensionalFusion, Sekundenlang, Nascar9919, and Onceinawhile: The source says a "contestant" was disqualified. The hook says "song". Are those the same thing? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Sekundenlang (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them such @Sekundenlang:, given that October Rain had been de facto banned earlier in the year?--Laun chba ller 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For October Rain, only the song was banned/disqualified, for Europapa, both the song and the artist were. --Sekundenlang (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've just proved that "artist" and "song" are different things.--Laun chba ller 22:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped this out to prep 6 to give us a bit more time to sort things out. RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternate hook: "that Joost Klein released an official nightcore version of his song "Europapa"?" https://www.ad.nl/songfestival/joost-brengt-greatest-hits-ep-van-europapa-uit~a04f5557/ - Sekundenlang (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: ^ - Sekundenlang (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only interesting if you know what nightcore is and don't know that this isn't unusual.--Laun chba ller 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With one eye on WP:DYKHOOKBLP, "that Europapa was removed from the Eurovision Song Contest following the disqualification of its performer?"--Laun chba ller 13:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support that, but reword to "the song Europapa was removed..." - Sekundenlang (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think context makes it clear what Europapa is, but I'll leave it to either @RoySmith: or @Crisco 1492:, who queued it.--Laun chba ller 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the need to include quotations (per MOS:QUOTETITLE), I think that the second alt (disqualification) has potential. I don't think BLP issues exist, as it isn't "undue". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 1 of DYK namespace change

My proposal to change the DYK namespace in phases. If consensus is found here, 10 days after consensus is gained then my proposal will enter into action and the following will occur:

Template:Did you know/Queue will be moved to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue
- All DYK queues will be moved from Template:Did you know/Queue/1 will be moved to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/1, and etc
- All DYK queues will be moved from Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 will be moved to Wikipedia:Did you know/Prep area/1, and etc
- DYKUpdateBot will be updated not to edit Template:Did you know/Queue/1 and instead edit Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/1 and etc for other queues and prep areas
- DYKUpdateBot will be updated to replace Template:Did you know from Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/1 instead
Template:DYKbox will be edited for label+data 31 to refer to the new page name
User:Theleekycauldron/Templates/DYK queue backlog will be edited not to refer to Template:Did you know/Queue and instead refer to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue
Template:DYK queue will be edited to refer to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/1, and etc
Template:DYK queue/navigation will be edited to refer to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/1 instead of Template:Did you know/Queue/1, and etc
Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions will be edited to refer to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue
User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter will be updated to promote to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/1 and etc for prep areas
T:DYK/Q1 will redirect to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/1 and etc.
T:DYK/Q will redirect to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue
Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(Queue 1) will be updated to refer to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/
Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(Tomorrow and Queue 1 DYK) will be updated to refer to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/
Wikipedia:Main Page/Day after tomorrow will be updated to refer to Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue/
Template:Queue and Template:Prep updated to refer to new queues and preps

Please do let me know if you think I've missed anything so it can be added DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is really well thought out; I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient to move past this phase and address the nominations instead. If the goal of the namespace change is to make this more accessible to newcomers, I think the preps and queues being in template space is probably the most understandable part of the entire enterprise (and the one usually only touched by people acquainted with the backrooms anyway). I'm not opposed, but it seems like a lot of hassle for not a huge reward, and it might be easier to just skip to trying to reorganize the DYK nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also just don't see the reason for this big of a lift -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this stage has the least reward, however it is also the easiest to carry out compared to the many moves and changes required for the nominations: at the very least, all active nominations would need to be moved in addition to the holder pages, not to mention the bot dependencies and non-bot dependencies. That's not to say it can't be done, it would just take longer. In my view, this phase would therefore be the easiest and would allow for some momentum DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that everyone seems to be pretty meh about it, and the arguments given about hassle versus reward, I think I'll shelve this for now and move on to nominations. This could be revived later down the line to standardise things DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How will this interact with the plan described below in #Giving queues template instead of full protection? RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it should – based on my understanding, page protection is preserved through page moves DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving queues template instead of full protection?

We have a chronic problem of not enough admins doing promotions to queues. We also have a number of highly skilled DYK regulars who I would trust to edit queues but they can't because they're not admins and don't want to be. What if we changed the queues to Template protection instead of full protection. Then we could give WP:Template editor to a few people.

I know, there will be pushback at the project level to the change, but let's for the moment assume we can overcome that. From a DYK perspective, is that something that would work? Are there people who would be willing to take on the Template editor role and start doing queue promotions? RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd grab that with both hands. (I wouldn't mind being an admin either, but you can probably think of your own reasons why I might not go down very well at WP:RFA, and I'd want to get some featured content under my belt first.)--Laun chba ller 13:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea in theory (more trusted people with buttons is good), but in practise there are currently 191 template editors versus 851 administrators. Would such a small number be able to impact queues in the long-term? And you suggest that people could be given template editor to make the necessary changes, but such people would need to be go through normal template request to be trusted with all template tools, just as with admins (e.g. Admins joining solely for DYK) needing to be trusted with all their tools. I support the idea of doing something like this because as of late all the prep areas have been entirely full (even though most queues have been empty), meaning I've been unable to make any promotions :(DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 15 users at Template:DYK admins, of which I reckon four (RoySmith, Kusma, BorgQueen, Theleekycauldron) have raked sets this month. All extra hands on deck would help.--Laun chba ller 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that ratio of 15/851 (1.7%) admins is also true for template editors then that suggests only about 3 template editors would put their name to the project, and if the activity ratio is also true for 4/851 (0.47%) then that suggests we have about 8/10ths of a template editor. Which isn't the point of the original post but interesting to note DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of current template editors is irrelevant. We have a lot of capable people here who will not become administrators because our process to make administrators is broken (and has been broken for well over a decade). If we give these people the "template editor" right and lower protection of the queues, we will gain all of the people we add to the system as prep to queue promoters. —Kusma (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this. We do desperately need DYK admins, and since RfA is currently a pit of hell, I don't see it getting any better (I believe I read somewhere that we are losing more admins then gaining them because of how absolutely botched the system is). Until the process is revamped, we probably need a way to keep things efficient, and I'd 100% support giving template editors the right to promote. Sir MemeGod  14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But how to decide who gets promotion rights and who doesn't? That could get a bit awkward. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The default system is "admin discretion". —Kusma (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does that work? Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, go to Special:UserRights/AirshipJungleman29, click "template editor", add the reason "does good work, should do even more work", click "Save user groups". I have for example given theleekycauldron the template editor right (before she became an admin) when she needed it for something (I think it was about DYK related edit notices). —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure the wider community likes the idea of giving me more hats, but if you're willing I guess I'm down? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression the opposite was true. IOW, that the community was in favor of debundling the toolset. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline for granting TPE so it's not completely up to admin discretion. Users being granted the right should meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Template editor#Guidelines for granting — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section does explicitly say "The above items are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities", though. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be opposed to this like I am opposed to all sorts of unbundling of admin tasks. But I have given up on Wikipedia ever promoting enough good folks to administrators, so now I think we should go for it. We should lower the protection of the queues to template editor and hand out 5-20 new template editor rights to the most trusted preppers and prep copyeditors (and perhaps take it away from people who screw up too much). Just out of paranoia, we should not change anything about the cascading full protection that keeps the top queue admin only. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 is far too many. 5 or 6 max if that. But we could just ask a few former DYK admins for more assistance. I know that I personally have been intending to get back to some DYK promotion for quite some time, but never quite seem to manage it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the queue shows that we do not have enough people willing to do p2q promotions. I do not think there is a sustainable way to change that with former DYK admins, even if you may be able to rope some of them in for firefighting every now and then. —Kusma (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But then if you allow people with the template editor permission to edit the queue, how do you stop just anybody who happens to have the permission from editing it? Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I want to stop them? If we have to, we can just take away their template editor rights. —Kusma (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most behavior on enwiki is self-policed. We explain to people how they're expected to behave and trust them to do so. That's especially true as you get to advanced permission holders (which I consider template editors to be). RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a great idea. I remember you asking me to be go through the RFA process, but it doesn't seem to have changed when I was nominated over 10 years ago. Even if I don't do queue promotions, I would like to at least fix errors that others bring up. There have been many times when I would have jumped in to fix hook errors, but of course I don't have the ability to do that. I wouldn't mind doing queue promotions either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gratified at the positive reception this has received, and thus started a related discussion at WP:VPP#Template protection for DYK queues?. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, those of you who might want to be an admin but have been unwilling to run because they don't want to deal with WP:RFA, might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrator elections. RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator elections sound just as stressful as RfA to my ears DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of action

I see broad consensus above to implement this. I also haven't seen anything yet on WP:VPP#Template protection for DYK queues? which convinces me I'd get in trouble if I proceeded, but I'll let that run for a bit longer to make sure no show-stoppers emerge. I'm going to be at WCNA October 3-6; it makes sense to hold off doing this until I can come back. My plan is to change the protection of:

to template protection. Shubinator I took a look at User:DYKUpdateBot/Code. As far as I can tell, it ensures images are fully protected, but doesn't care about the queues themselves, so this change shouldn't be noticed by the bot. Can you confirm this?

If I understand how the main page protections work, Main Page is fully protected with the "Cascading protection" flag set. Main Page transcludes Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow which in turn transcludes {{Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/Next}}}}, so the top queue will still end up being fully protected. Which means non-admin template editors will be able to edit the other six queues, but it will still take an admin to edit the top queue. I don't quite understand why the protection doesn't continue to cascade down to everything the queue transcludes, but I assume there's some template magic which limits the cascade level. Perhaps that's the purpose of the various <noinclude> tags?

As far as anointing new template editors goes, technically I (or any other admin) has the ability to flip the bit, but I think as a matter of transparency, it makes sense to apply at WP:PERM and also post a note here saying that you've applied. I imagine we'd want to start with 1 or 2 people and see how things go. Given that this will give people rights to edit sensitive things outside of DYK, it won't be handed out like candy. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you do that and I'll apply for the permissions. Laun chba ller 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that full protection still applies to today's and tomorrow's queues, you might be better just reducing the protection to extended confirmed. This would eliminate the need for editors to get extra rights. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus to do that, I would have no objection. Let's see how people react to the idea. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit too relaxed; I wouldn't want editors with 513 edits queueing sets. If PSHAW could check whether an editor is an admin, had over 10,000 edits, or had promoted over ~150 hooks, then that might be fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would that work though? PSHAW is a user script and can only do what the user can do DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might think so. But WP:OTD only fully protects today's and tomorrow's pages. All the others are just semi-protected I believe, and that seems to work fine for them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This should be given by an assigned right so that there is at least some vetting.--Laun chba ller 20:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this for a while, and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Perhaps we could appoint people as "DYK Clerks", similar to SPI clerks or ArbCom clerks. The software won't enforce anything, but the rule would be "Queues are for clerks only". If you violate the rule, you get trouted (exactly what happens at SPI if you violate the "archives are for clerks only" rule). Clerkships would be handed out by rough consensus at WT:DYK.

Right now, there's really no vetting at all. Anybody with a mop, whether they know anything about how DYK works or not, can muck with the queues. Having mopless but clueful clerks seems preferable to that. RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that might very well work. Let's try it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we do that, we should just get rid of the preps altogether and just let people directly edit the (non-top) queues. The responsibility for fact checking would then be with people we currently call prep builders. —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(And of course we could get rid of the prep/queue system completely by just transcluding [[Wikipedia:Did you know/{{TODAY}}]] onto the Main Page similar to what we do with OTD, but that's probably a separate discussion). —Kusma (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a good idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, but responsibility for quality control cannot be left to prep builders alone. The prep/queue system works not only because it has up until now relied solely upon admins for the final step, but because in making that final step, sets by necessity get an additional check from a fresh reviewer. That additional check is a vital component of the DYK process in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think our current process is poor design. The person deciding what to put on the Main Page (the prep builder) should be the same as the person taking responsibility for what is on the Main Page (currently the queuer). We currently have three levels of "quality control" but allow the first two levels to be sloppy, relying on a scarce resource (queuers willing to sign off other people's work) in a very un-wiki process. —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, I don't think we should be adopting OTD's system because, until fairly recently, OTD was absolutely full of show-crashing holes in every set. The only reason it's not (usually) like that anymore is careful attention from a group of admins willing to wipe each set clean. Trusted users should have to sign off on every set, otherwise we just have too many problems. Under the system that's being proposed here, the final check on a set going on the Main Page could be from someone with just 500 edits and no community-granted permissions – I absolutely cannot get behind that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Gatoclass (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) With respect Kusma, although I have been pretty inactive of late, I have done a ton of both prep building and queue promoting in the past, and I do not believe for a moment that prep builders should have final responsibility for quality control, because they already have too many other considerations to juggle in putting together sets. For that final step, one needs somebody who is focused solely on quality control, not on that plus all the other considerations that must go into building a balanced set, to say nothing of the time and effort required. If you expect prep builders to do all the quality control as well, you are going to end up with either nobody ever building a set, or an unacceptable number of errors going through to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody has "final" responsibility for quality control of each of their edits; this is a wiki after all. Separating edits from taking responsibility for them is what I do not like. By all means have an extra review process, but why should the reviewer have more responsibility for the edit than the person who made it?

As to "prep builders are so busy already": preps are built by a much more collaborative and wiki process than queues, often with people promoting individual hooks and moving them around and with several people working on copyedits. Compared to that, our process to fix anything once in the queues is both understaffed and bureaucratic. —Kusma (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, yes, prep builders are supposed to thoroughly check noms before promoting them. But practically, it's just too much for one person to do. As RoySmith has pointed out, just to properly check a single queue generally takes 20 minutes to half an hour - and that's if one doesn't find any errors that need work. Expecting people to do that and search for a bunch of varied hooks and decide how to sort them and go through the transfer process just gets overwhelming. So yes, builders must check for errors but a second reviewer is needed to verify their work.

Other than that - anybody can build a prep set as things stand, and prep builders have a wide range of competence, so their work always needs to be checked. This entire proposal, after all, is about finding a method to add a few more queue promoters who don't have the admin bit but who can be trusted with quality control. What you seem to be proposing is to just let any Tom, Dick or Harry promote to queue because there are enough people checking each other's work for it all to somehow work out. History shows that is a great way to have a complete breakdown in quality control. Gatoclass (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the argument could be made that allowing more people to work on cues would actually help solve the checking stuff. By not having to rely on sysops, quality control could be made faster and more flexible, since people could just pull or revise hooks instead of needing to bother admins about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either we expect prep builders to check the noms or we don't. I think a typical way for a major blunder to make it to the Main Page is a sloppy qpq review (only checking newness, length and Earwig) followed by a prep builder only interested in typical prep builder stuff like bio/US balance and an admin promoting a set in two minutes to alleviate the backlog. Each of them can pretend that somebody else did the checking. I think fewer rounds of box ticking could be helpful in making people take more responsibility. Or perhaps we should have clearer responsibilities and say that prep builders do not need to make certain checks so they will be left only to admins who then won't be able to pretend somebody else did them. Full disclosure: as an admin promoting preps to queues, I do not check everything either. I generally check for accuracy, NPOV, BLP and copyvio and do not care at all about general eligibility things like newness, as getting those wrong does little harm. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My prep-to-queue checks are that I can find the hook fact stated in the article and that there's a citation to what looks like a RS, and that Earwig doesn't point out anything horrible. If something raises a red flag (a "first" claim, for example), I'll run that down. I'll give the sources a cursory glance just to see if they're total BS. When I was building preps, most of my effort went into complying with our style rules for balancing topics and maintaining variety.

It's really the initial review that digs the deepest into the guts of the article, but I'd be naïve to believe most of those do as good a job as they should. Many initial reviews are done by our newest DYK participants so they haven't yet built the skills we need. Some are done by more experienced DYK denizens but as a rush job so they can tick off the QPQ box. It's not a good situation, but it is what it is. RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility is shared, yes - and really has to be, because one person alone is unlikely to pick up every potential issue. Under the current system, hooks get reviewed as they make it to the main page by a minimum of three people, and that is a system that has proven to be reasonably robust. Having said that, the principle onus of responsibility must always be on the administrator promoting the hook to the queue. because they are the last link in the chain and as an admin they are held to a higher level of accountability than others. But at the same time, imagining you are somehow going to get better results by dispensing with two levels of error checking is, I'm afraid to say, just plain delusional. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good that I never suggested going below two levels of checking, then. Anyway, we are getting quite off topic, as the original point of this conversation was to expand the pool of queuers by going to template protection instead of full. I still think we should go for that ASAP. I do not currently expect consensus to implement any more radical ideas and apologise for the distraction. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in listen-mostly mode on this for the past few days as I'm on the road, but I see a couple of possible ways forward:

1) My original proposal of using template protection.

2) User:MSGJ's modification of that to use ECP instead.

3) Using ECP coupled with appointing DYK clerks who are socially authorized (but not software enforced) to manage the queues.

At this point, I'm kind of leaning towards #3, and I suspect #2 would be a non-starter. What do other people think? RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I hate it when I can't edit something, and I'd hate it even more if someone tells me they reverted my good edit because I wasn't authorised to make it. Also, 3 smells like bureaucracy. So I prefer 1 or 2. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to ECP protection, either alone or with "clerks", because almost anybody can edit an ECP-protected page so it's tantamount to practically no protection at all. One major reason why we went to template protection in the first place was the problem of random editors suddenly altering hooks in problematic ways shortly before they went to the main page, and that certainly isn't something I would want to see reintroduced. Template protection would be the bare minimum in my view and even that I have serious concerns about. Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever protection level we choose, the next queue is always automatically fully protected via cascading protection, so we always have at least 12 hours of full protection before a set hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass and Kusma: Prep builders actually aren't required to recheck the nomination in full. They usually check more than they have to by virtue of being experienced, but they're technically only responsible for reverifying the hook and some other minor checks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sorry if I implied otherwise. Hook verification is the main thing, added to that, when promoting to the queue, I usually do a quick check that everything is sourced and that the sources look reliable, along with a quick scan to ensure that there are no obvious problems with prose quality (prep builders should do the same IMO). But yes, hook accuracy is the prime concern. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking the hook is the most important of the checks at each stage, as the hook will be shown to millions of readers, not just tens of thousands like the article (if you are lucky), but I am not always convinced that preppers have done this.

Looking at the admin instructions (I rarely use them other than as a checklist for manual updates) I think we should update the admin instructions a bit to remove some of the stuff nobody does or only does at other times. For example, the check that the image is protected needs to happen only for manual updates because it is otherwise done by the bot; it is not something we actually do for prep to queue. —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been too active on DYK lately, but I've always wanted to give Queue building a shot so I might consider applying. Either that or I'd like to at least try out the permission so I can help out in stuff like pulling or rewording hooks from Queue. I did read the requirements for Template editor and they do seem rather stringent even for most DYK regulars, especially with the stuff related to template editing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween set

I think it could be nice to have a Halloween-themed DYK set this year, like last year. Would anyone else be interested in working on this? User:Premeditated Chaos said that she has a page ready, so that's already one. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, I did Feetloaf. Not sure I've got anything better than that in the wings. The scariest I've got in my dusty drafts collection is User:RoySmith/drafts/Token Sucking. That's been incubating for six years and I still haven't managed to get it done. Maybe it's worth putting some effort into for this year. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the nomination up for mine now: Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is another approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

Blue Mountain Pottery

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, and Sammi Brie: There's an entire paragraph that's almost word-for-word from the source[1]. I'm also a little concerned about the sourcing in general; it looks like most of this is sourced to BMP's own blog and/or a BMP collector's club. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith My apologies, but I will not be able to address these concerns; if neither can the nominator, then I suggest that you just pull it. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz can you address this? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Working at moment. Will get to it this evening. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please don't let it go too long; this is going to be on the main page in 3 days and we really want things nailed down with at least a day to spare. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, and your patience. Started working on it tonight but a family obligation intervened. Will get up early in the morning to attend to it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article and have made some changes, and have the following comments:

I've reworked that paragraph in my own words, and changed the cites for it. Not sure how I let that slip by in my re-do of the article; apologies.
I agree with the concerns about relying too heavily on the pottery club articles, but in my opinion, the article is based primarily on the bulletin from the Royal Ontario Museum, which is a very well-respected institution in Canada, and the two articles from Mountain Life, which as best as I can tell is a regional newspaper, specialising in the events and history of the area, and also one article from Readers Digest; perhaps not the most scholarly cites, but I think they meet the standard for reliable cites, and do establish the notability of the subject matter.
The fact that two different museums in the Toronto area (the ROM and the George R. Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art) each feature collections of the pottery, plus the fact that Canada Post issued a commemorative stamp, all go to to the notability of the topic, and those facts are sourced by the ROM bulletin and one of the Mountain Life articles.
I understand the concern about the Pottery Club cites, but in each case, they are not used alone, but in combination with the other cites to the ROM or Mountain Life articles. I think that usage is acceptable for an article of this sort, discussing a local manufacturing enterprise.
The concluding four cites are all to local news and community sources, outlining the retrospective showing in 2022, which I think qualify as reliable sources. They show the ongoing interest in the Blue Mountain Pottery, which again goes to notability.
I've deleted one cite to the Pottery Club itself; not sure what it was doing there; again, apologies for not catching that earlier.

Hope this responds to your concerns; thank you for your eagle-eye and comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is good to go. If you ever want to turn this into a WP:GA, I suspect the reviewers there will push you more on the sourcing, but it's good enough for DYK. RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 4

The hook for Psycho Mantis is a bit vague and could be read as the character playing the video games or the person playing MGS as the person who has played those games. The latter interpretation is the accurate one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed to "... that the character Psycho Mantis in the video game Metal Gear Solid breaks the fourth wall by identifying the player's other games?", which I think is less ambiguous. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing credits

Dear promoters, please double check on any missing credits. Currently Q4 has an empty credit slot (Doesn't it cause problems for the bot, @Theleekycauldron?) and Q5 has a few missing apparently, for the number of the credits and that of the bolded articles do not match. PSHAW removes an existing credit under certain conditions as it has been explained. BorgQueen (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the PSHAW's credit removals. BorgQueen (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted, BorgQueen. For the record, I do make sure the proper credits are filled out whether I prep automatically or manually; those noms with the missing credits did not come from me, nor did I prep any hook raked to Q4. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's Changed?

Hi all,

I got my bit back, and was thinking of helping out with DYK again (similar motivation to #Giving queues template instead of full protection? above). Since I haven't been a DYK admin since 2018, I was wondering if there was anything in the promotion/backend of things to know before starting? I see that we are being more diligent about posting potential issues on WT:DYK, with pings, and that PSHAW has been rolled out. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back to help out again! We recently tightened up the rules on QPQ. It used to be OK to submit your hook without a QPQ and then back-fill that later. Now we require that the QPQ be submitted at the same time as the nomination. Not everybody is aware of the rule change yet, so people are mostly just getting gentle reminders, as long as they're not trying to game the system. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read this section as well, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RoySmith and BorgQueen. I'll keep those in mind - I have double checked the credits on the two queues I promoted earlier, and they look okay, but it's good to be aware of those potential issues. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 of DYK namespace change

Given the arguments pointed out for phase 1 about how newbies never really touch the queues and promotions, I present Phase 2 of the DYK namespace change (it's technically phase 1 since the original phase 1 got postponed but phase 2 to prevent confusion). If accepted by the community, the proposals will be implemented ten days from that date.

Template talk:Did you know will be moved to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations
Template talk:Did you know/Approved will be moved to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved
The nomination wizard, MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js, will be changed (Only interface administrators and interface editors can edit it) on lines 28 and 29, which specify template pages. This will ensure new nominations are created in the new namespaces.
All active nomination pages (those that have not yet been added to a prep area) will be moved from Template:Did you know nominations/xyz to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/xyz
DYK-helper will be updated to add pages to the correct namespace
- Nominations in Wikipedia:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved will have WP: added to the start of the template
User:WugBot is updated to move nominations from the new pending nominations page to the new approved nominations page
User:DYKHousekeepingBot is updated to locate the new pages correctly
User:DYKUpdateBot is updated to locate the new pages correctly
User:DYKToolsBot is updated to locate the new pages correctly
Template:DYKmake is updated to link to the new nom page namespace

Smaller things
Template:DYK recent approved nav is updated with new links Template:DYK nomination header is updated with new links Template:DYKbox is updated with new links

If you think I've left anything out, let me know!!! If you have any feedback, also reply below. Thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great idea. I would suggest a subpage structure, e.g. Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations to keep everything under the parent page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So nominations would be Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations/xyz instead of Template:Did you know nominations/xyz? Sounds interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Maybe with a capital "N" to match other subpages like Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, Wikipedia:Did you know/Monthly wrap, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Approved doesn't need to be a subpage of nominations. Could use Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ensure Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations/Approved redirect here, to prevent new pages springing up where fewer people will be watching. This seems doable if timed to occur shortly after a new set goes live. We will need to check for new nominations appearing in the template space for a bit, perhaps someone knows if the way we catch current malformed nominations will work for this. CMD (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, remote talk pages don't tend to get attention so it's better to redirect to somewhere it will be read DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3/2021 Naperville-Woodridge tornado

I found out my DYK submission had been accepted via the watchlist as the ping didn't go through. Anyway, the DYK article pipe was changed from a 2021 tornado in the Chicago suburbs to a tornado in Chicago. This is factually inaccurate as Chicago itself was not impacted by the tornado directly (although it almost was). I understand the text length concern, so the use of a tornado in Chicagoland or a tornado near Chicago in its place could be used as a compromise. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, I'll adjust it. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "... in 2021, the windy city got really, really, windy?" RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This blurb would be perfect for Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024, where six tornadoes hit the city itself in 24 hours. I'm thinking I might expand the article within the month and nominate it again. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if and when it does, the entry will be "...that the Windy City was struck by two windstorms and six whirlwinds in only 24 hours?" This is in no way a nomination. I won't start seriously expanding the article until around October 18 or so, when the NCEI storm database releases their report for July 2024 events. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone from outside the US, what's the distinction? Why does it need to be made more obscure DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago is a big city, so saying the tornado hit Chicago makes it sound as if it ran straight into the Loop, which isn't accurate. Sir MemeGod  15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A city (such as Chicago) has specific geographic boundaries. The term "suburbs" is short for "suburban area" and generally refers to the built-up areas around a city but not technically inside the city boundaries. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Preceding comment removed in an edit conflict, restored by GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries set by government don't necessarily reflect the actual geographic size of a city – e.g. Malta's capital city, Valletta, technically has a population of 5,000 set by the government but an Urban population of 480,000 DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tornado happened in the Chicago metropolitan area, hence why saying Chicago doesn't really make sense. Sir MemeGod  16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For most people, Chicago metropolitan area == Chicago unless you really care about that sort of thing. For the same reason London == London metropolitan area and Capital of Malta == Valletta metropolitan area DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. Naperville isn't even considered part of Chicago. Sir MemeGod  16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link goes to a Page not found – if Naperville isn't part of Chicago, why not just say Naperville? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Chicago suburbs" makes the location of Naperville easier to identify. If someone asked me to point out Naperville on a map, I'd be confused, but if someone told me to point out "Chicago suburbs" on a map, it's a lot easier to understand. That's also a contributing factor to how interesting the hook is, it happened in the Chicago area. Sir MemeGod  16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So... It's Chicago then DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not Chicago. It's 28 miles west of there. Saying it's Chicago without qualification is blatantly inaccurate, and running inaccurate hooks gets them pulled from the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say that to people from the West Midlands if they can hear you... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the argument is going on, I'll present a bit more context: The initial tornado warning (which I got as the image for the page on tornado warning) did include areas of the city of Chicago, specifically Chicago Lawn and Midway International Airport. The tornado itself reached Chicago's county, Cook County, Illinois, but dissipated after affecting the cities of Willow Springs and Burr Ridge, both of which are in both Cook and DuPage county. The storm did produce wind gusts, rainfall, and (potentially) hail in the aforementioned areas, but as far as I can tell nothing notable came of it (i.e. no injuries, fatalities, or significant damage). Nothing of note happened in The Loop itself, either. No tornado hit Chicago in 2021. The DYK page saying as much is inaccurate. WP:VNT is a non-argument as there are numerous official, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that clearly state that Burr Ridge, Willow Springs, Darien, Woodridge, and Naperville are not Chicago, and instead suburbs of Chicago. Besides, it's one word changing from "in" to "near", and the DYK was based on the helicity, not the location. The only source stating the tornado hit Chicago is a Geospacial Insurance Consortium article that has the claim that the tornado hit "Southside [sic] of Chicago" in its title and nowhere else. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try but the West Midlands isn't real. It's just bigger Birmingham DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll speak up for the poster who does not immediately get the difference. They are far from the only one, and from 9000 miles away, it seems kind of so . . ., but there is a precise way to look at it, and not. (If you are from England or know it perhaps think City of London and not.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things can also get weird in the US. I live in the Bronx which by all legal definitions is part of New York City. But informally if I have to go to Manhattan, I'll say, "I need to go into the city". And don't even try to figure out why New York City (which is part of New York State) consists of five counties, one of which is New York County. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have to go the Marble Hill . . .:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's "the Bronx", but just plain "Marble Hill", not "the Marble Hill". Because history. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here, we thought it was The Bronx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's "the Bronx" or "The Bronx" seems to be a matter of style. I've seen it both ways. Also "Da Bronx" :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a personal one, since RoySmith already went. I live in Gahanna, Ohio, 10-or-so minutes from Columbus, Ohio, a city with almost a million residents. Gahanna is technically part of Columbus, but it is overwhelmingly referred to as either Gahanna or the "Columbus Suburbs". "Columbus" is reserved for downtown Columbus. :) Sir MemeGod  17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im with the US editors here, and for a local one to me, while Bellevue, Washington and Redmond, Washington are in the greater Seattle metropolitan area; Microsoft, Nintendo, T-Mobile US, and Costco would all raise a fit if you said they were in the Seattle city limits.--Kev min § 18:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Wikipedia editors are American though DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado took place in Chicago, located in the US. With that, we should probably use United States terms, and US editors have overwhelmingly agreed that Chicago and Chicago suburbs are separate places, from what I've gouged from this discussion. Sir MemeGod  19:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If US editors (speaking with a crudely broad brush) think the suburbs of Chicago are not part of Chicago, let's just keep to that fudge, as I'm sure most other editors would think they are part of Chicago and thus get the basic geographical area. CMD (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5 II

Umehara ga kimeta

The article is orange-tagged. @DimensionalFusion BorgQueen (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the tags, isn't it obvious the article has serious issues? I'm kinda surprised it got promoted to a prep. BorgQueen (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article, and instantly noticed that the name of the game being commentated over isn't mentioned in the lede. For a commentary video, that strikes me as very odd and not DYK quality quite yet. For comparison, that would be akin to a sports commentary that didn't mention the name of the teams involved. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, and that's only the beginning. I think the whole article will have to be rewritten. BorgQueen (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook has been pulled; discussion can continue at Template:Did you know nominations/Umehara ga kimeta. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking at the article again it clearly fails WP:DYKTAG.

Funnily enough, Prep builder instructions doesn't actually require promoters to check that an article is good, just that it has passed the review and that issues in the review have been resolved. I thought it did require promoters to look over whether it meets the guidelines but apparently I'm misremembering DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: 3 October

There was an item posted at Errors about Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus signum shortly before this was to go to the main page. Nobody responded to it during the period before promotion to the main page, so I pulled it and put it back into the unreviewed list. I've replaced it with Template:Did you know nominations/Anders Årfelt from Prep1 after checking that the hook fact was fine and manually protected the image that went with it. I haven't had a chance to deal with the other admin checks.

Note that my initial intention was to use the lead hook from Prep4 (Template:Did you know nominations/Actinote zikani) but could not verify that hook (maybe because I had to work at speed and didn't have time to read the sources properly, or maybe because it simply doesn't check out). And If I'm needed for a follow up (not sure why; just in case it comes up), please ping me. Schwede 66 00:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who nominated Actinote zikani, so I may be impartial, but I can confirm that it is in the text. Sir MemeGod  14:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod: Could you quote from the cited sources? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: @Schwede66: Sure. A. zikani was searched for intensively by RBF and AVLF in the type-locality in April-May and November-December, and also in other sites with the same environmental characteristics (Francini 1992), but none were seen. The only new information was from KB who saw a possible male of this species on the wing in April 1981 on the edge of the road from Tapiraí to Sorocaba, in southern São Paulo state, about 1000 m altitude in a very wet forest. Because of the difﬁculty in ﬁnding extant colonies of this species, KB proposed the inclusion of A. zikani on the list of Brazilian species possibly threatened with extinction (Bernardes et al. 1990; Brown 1991), and since then, A. zikani has been classiﬁed as critically endangered (SP-SMA 1998, MMA 2003). With intensive searching, ﬁnally on 16 March 1991 (1100 h), on a routine trip, RBF and AVLF found a male ﬂying at the summit of the Serra do Mar, 20 km northeast of the city of Santos, São Paulo. for the "Rediscovery of Actinote zikani (D'Almeida) (Nymphalidae, Heliconiinae, Acraeini): natural history, population biology and conservation of an endangered butterfly in SE Brazil" article. The other article doesn't discuss it's rediscovery, so that was an error on my part. REPAD's "The Recently Extinct Plants and Animals Database" lists it as extinct until 1991, matching up with the "last seen 1981". That can be found at [3]. Sir MemeGod  00:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:AfC accept § Pointer to DYK?

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC accept § Pointer to DYK?. Sdkb ^talk 20:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, bad one got thru

Here's one that got thru that shouldn't have. Hey I know this is a fast-moving operation, we are all volunteers, nobody's perfect and some non-optimal stuff is going to thru on occasion (and the DYK vetting is actually quite vigorous and effective). Still, I feel compelled to point this one out as perhaps the sort of thing to watch for in future.

I'm talking about Masada myth, which appeared as a DYK on 20 September 2024. The lede paragraph at that time (with bolding added for emphasis) said:

The Masada myth is the early Zionist retelling of the Siege of Masada, and an Israeli national myth. The Masada myth is a selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus's account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions. This narrative was socially constructed and promoted by Jews in Mandatory Palestine and later Israel. Despite the modern academic consensus, popular accounts by figures like Yigal Yadin and Moshe Pearlman have perpetuated the myth, influencing public perception.

and to excerpt the rest of the lede (of which some parts are OK, granted):

This narrative selectively emphasized... the defenders' courage and resistance while omitting the details of their murderous campaign against innocent Jews. The Masada myth's central role in Israeli collective memory has puzzled scholars due to its structural differences from other national myths [as it] is not heroic in nature."

POV much? Come on. King Arthur wasn't real, Roland's sword could not cleave stone, and the first emperor of Japan was not a god. We don't describe all the other foundational myths as having "fabrications and omissions" or complain that they "selectively" emphasized the good parts of the mythic founders while leaving out the bad parts ("murderous" etc.) and so forth because of course they do, what would you expect. We just describe the myth. Why make an exception for these particular people in the lede. Not a good look to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point about the "Masada myth" referenced here is that it's a modern myth invented for political reasons that still has relevance to a current political situation. Legends like King Arthur or those pertaining to the Emperor of Japan simply do not have the same political dimension, which is why they are not subject to the same kind of analysis. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was pulled after this discussion at WP:ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that looks more like a case of a seriously underdone hook rather than an issue with the content of the article per se. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you're mostly wrong about the political dimension I think, national myths tell stories that bond the nation together and make people proud of it. That is political in a broad sense. And some national myths are not so very old or arisen from folk tales -- the Finnish Kavala was written in 1935 for instance. I could say a lot more, and I have at that article's talk page.

But I mean I'm not here to argue about content points. Let's get real here. We all know how the demographic heavily represented here is uh turning and turning hard if you get my drift. But, I don't care what anybody chants at the demonstration, we don't bring that here. But some editors don't get that, so keep a lookout for more of this stuff. And for anybody who doesn't see a problem with that lede, I would ask them to recuse themselves from articles dealing with Israel and the people who live there, and let others do the looking out, thanks.

Again, thanks for your service, carry on and dread nought. Herostratus (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credit help

Hi folks, my credit for Juno (song) from my double article hook on the main page currently has not been processed to my talk page. Would be great if someone could help with that. I had added it to my nomination within the seven-day eligibility period following its creation.--N Ø 00:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging AirshipJungleman29, who promoted it to Prep.--N Ø 00:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its credit was never added to the nom page when it was converted to a double. I've added it to Juno's talk page and your talk page; I think I've done everything.--Laun chba ller 00:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eced my explanation. (I added the nom to the second article talk page as well, although at this point it's not necessary.) CMD (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination tool

The DYK guidelines says that "There should not be a space before the question mark, but if the text directly preceding it is italicized, the {{-?}} tag can offset it." However, if this template is used in the nomination tool, it says something along the lines of "the nomination must contain a question mark." This message should not appear if that template is used. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Abdul Ahad Azad

"First" claims have had a lot of kickback, and something subjective like "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is definitely not going to fly. The article mitigates it with "considered", which is a bit better, but still not quite main-page worthy. Tagging creator, reviewer, and promoter: Ratekreel, User:Onceinawhile, AirshipJungleman29 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this comment. We are allowed superlatives (largest, fastest, most) so long as they are objective / verifiable / falsifiable. In fact we are encouraged to used them, as they go to the heart of what makes a topic interesting. Being the "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is 100% objective, particularly because Kashmiri literature is a modern phenomenon so the evidence is easy to confirm.

The statements in the hook rely on the published words of Braj Kachru and Ghulam Nabi Gowhar. I cannot think of more appropriate sourcing.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three sources are offline, but the one that is online describes him as "the first revolutionary socialist poet" which is much more specific (and credible). So I would have to agree with Chris that the original hook won't fly, and that the article itself probably needs a little further clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onceinawhile. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm saying that we shouldn't present this information in Wikipedia's voice. A "first" claim, especially with a) something as subjective as themes, and b) something as multi-interpretable as "revolutionary" (in what, style? politics?) needs to be attributed. As Gatoclass notes above, the descriptor "socialist" certainly helps, as it makes it clear that this is politically revolutionary, and that it is a specific subclass of politics. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cris Woodrich, the "first" claim is well referenced in scholarships on Azad. The second "revolutionary" claim is explained in poetic themes section. Azad was revolutionary in the sense that he was wary of exploitation, socioeconomic inequality, injustice, and the likes etc and that he advocated for bringing about a change in social, political and linguistic landscape which would be essentially characterized by humanist, classless and inclusive society. And it's these topics, that became the new "themes" in Kashmiri literature.
I don't think adding "socialist" would help, it would rather reduce the cause that Azad stood for and translate him as a socialist (in political sense) like any other. Azad's philosophy was broader than the politics of socialists and it's necessary to acknowledge the Kashmiri blend in it. That why I would prefer keeping the present hook. --Ratekreel (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ratekreel. The issue is the use of Wikipedia's voice, rather than attributing it to the scholars. We have historically had issues with "first" hooks. Just looking at Archive 201, we have Capital Bicycle Club, Caanaanite shipwreck, Tina and Milo, Zhong Jingwen, and Ajah Pritchard-Lolo. This is compounded by the fact that, as a thematic analysis, there is necessarily a judgment call; what scholars have found in his works may be disputed by other scholars, or what scholars have dismissed by earlier poets may be deemed revolutionary by other scholars. As such, there needs to be attribution, or a non-"first" hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich, got it. How about we use ALT1 which states "... that Abdul Ahad Azad laid the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?" ---Ratekreel (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ratekreel, the article uses "credited with". I think, if the ALT uses that similar phrasing, we should be golden. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the ALT, "... that Abdul Ahad Azad is recognised for laying the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?", be fine? We could use "credited with" too. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should work. I'm copying the alt over to Prep 1. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you! --Ratekreel (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, see Special:Diff/1249592654 on why adding "socialist" won't help. Moreover, I don't think the online reference is more credible than two of the offline books. Kachru's book is a landmark work and so is Gauhar's biography of Azad. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the hook to Prep 1 pending discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Longings

The plot summary is +1000 words in a 1600-word article. Per WP:NOVELPLOT, this should be reduced by about a third. Technically not against DYK rules to run it with a yellow tag, but tagging Orchastrattor and Slgrandson in case this can be dealt with before the prep is promoted. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject easily falls under the "complex and dense" category highlighted by the guideline given both the textual scope of retelling the entire New Testament and the timeframe of covering some 20-30 years of the protagonist's life. I might shave off a hundred words or so but there really wouldn't be that much else to cut from the actual plot, its already missing plenty of details from the book. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree. There are multiple places where extraneous detail is provided, such as the name of the stillborn child. Other sentences could be rewritten: "On her way to meet Nathaniel, with whom she has been forced into a betrothal, Ana meets Jesus." There are also phrases such as "rumors begin to spread of her having been deflowered out of wedlock" that could be simplified by removing euphemisms ("rumors spread that she is no longer a virgin"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a couple of sentences in the "themes and analysis" section that are unsourced that need a citation. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tagged one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the hook to Prep 2 pending discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSHAW bug (minor)

When promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Deep Cut Gardens, PSHAW displayed a false warning that no green or grey check was on the page, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was 'cause the check mark was given as [[File:Symbol_confirmed.svg|16px]], with the underscore. Added support for that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]