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!
Now that the issues with Dollar Mountain Fire have been resolved, I would like to see it granted a full appearance as I would have gotten. The initial pull happened less the 3 1/2 hours into a 24 hour run, and historical precedent is that when asked, situations like this often are allowed to rerun the full term. Thanks --Kevmin§15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a finite number of slots per day so rerunning Dollar Mountain Fire means not running something else. Given that Dollar Mountain Fire was pulled for an unreliable source and we have more nominations in the queue than we can use, what makes giving it another slot more important than running something else? RoySmith(talk)15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have always had a "finite" number of slots, and yet we have historically also looked at early pulls from the main page and situations where a re-do was acceptable. The 1 single source was already addressed, and it was noted by @The ed17: that he did not feel the nomination should be punished for the pull given the minute amount of information from that source. Additionally placing this into the approved nominations page doesn't "bump" anything. Your frustration at the volume of nominations should be directed at the 1-5 noms and done crowd not the steady regulars that are pulling their weight (I currently have more banked QPQs then I have articles Im writing).--Kevmin§16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not frustrated at the volume of nominations. Quite the contrary: it's wonderful that we have more nominations than we can use. That gives us the ability to pick and choose the best ones. And I disagree that editors with only a few nominations should be dismissed as not pulling their weight. One of our stated objectives is ... the recruitment of new editors. RoySmith(talk)18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's harm in giving the article a second chance. The article ran for less than 1/4 of its scheduled run time for reasons that were quickly resolved. It could probably run again in a later set: I don't see where "this running again means another article can't" is coming from since it's just one article and it's not like there are any other hooks that need to be bumped off to make room for it, or even a nomination that needs to be rejected. Given how there are still multiple sets in preparation, this could easily be slotted into one of them. If the hook had run for 12 hours or more, I can see the argument about the article being given its chance, but with less than four hours, it probably deserves a fair showing on the Main Page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like theres not any other commentary coming. Based on the general support in the early discussion after the initial pull and the comment here, would it be acceptable to place the nom back at approved for prep builders to see and include in a set.--Kevmin§20:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should have a full main page run with image. I think the aspect of the firefighters surviving under a ledge is fascinating. Given the heat waves and fire risks some areas are currently having, this would be pertinent. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 Thanks. ITER Organization retains copyright in the pictures and videos. [...] The pictures and videos may not be sold, distributed or otherwise made available for use by third parties It most certainly isn't then. The image will have to be removed from the article, and eventually, from Commons. BorgQueen (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. You can certainly use all the materials found on our website, we would just appreciate if you could quote us @ITER Organization.
To be fair, I've found that process so frustrating in the past that I've stopped bothering to try. On more than one occasion I've found a photo that I wanted to use, wrote to the copyright owner, and got back an email just like the one Maury got: "Of course you can use it, no problem, we're happy to make it available". And then I write back, "That's great, thanks, but could you please send an email to permissions-commons and tell them X, Y, and Z?" and that's where things start to go sideways. The people at the other end don't understand why, after telling me it's OK, I'm insisting they jump through some additional hoops and eventually I just give up and don't use the photo. I get why we need to cross our t's and dot our i's, but it's still frustrating. RoySmith(talk)00:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might it perhaps be possible to change the standard DYK template that states "Nominator has less than 5 past nominations." to "Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations." Emphasis added. Some (though not all) may think "less" is ok, but nobody will think that fewer is incorrect. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:1979:BEF5:5AEC:99F4 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that one is correct. If you wanted to rephrase it to use a countable noun, you could say, "This article has fewer than 1500 readable prose characters", but "size" is a measurement so it takes "less than". RoySmith(talk)00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I'd say it's too soon to make the change. One of the reasons we went with nine hooks a set is to get through our backlog faster. Even with nine hooks a set, our backlogs are still long enough that nominations not transcluding is not uncommon. Given that the alternative is two sets a day, which would open up another whole can of worms, along with how in practice DYKTIMEOUT really only culls out a handful of nominations per month, I'd oppose the proposal for now as premature. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I did consider asking about going to two sets per day a few days ago as we had seven filled queues, which I can't remember ever seeing. I do know that a quick perusal of Category:Failed DYK nominations shows that last month - the first complete month in which timing out noms was a thing - we failed significantly less nominations than in any month since September 2022. I did some research at the start of the year and we should be running around 9.5 per set.--Launchballer08:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2/day is not very fun and a lot of work, but I think it is sometimes needed to reduce the backlog. I'm happy if we can avoid going to 2/day but would help again if we flip the switch (I tend to promote a lot during 2/day times and then end up a bit burned out and do not touch DYK queues for a few weeks or months). —Kusma (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think promotors are free to balance the sets on their own. For instance if there are too many long hooks in a set, the promotor can erase a slot. Too short, add a slot. I also do not like the idea of rejecting the work of editors to reduce a backlog. I think it is ok if the nominations wait. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since hooks rotated every 12 hours. Given that we are just over 120 approved nominations, 24 hours is fine. If we do get to 140, then theres the chance. JuniperChill (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The easiest to tweak are numerical things like article length and timeout criteria. Both could be made a bit stricter. —Kusma (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I was wondering if there was a prerequisite, formal or informal, for promoting hooks. Wikipedia:DYKPBI and WP:DYKPBR don't outline one, but I figured I'd ask just to be safe. Thanks. Kimikel (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by prerequisite? The prerequisite is probably that the hook should be approved by the reviewer, although it should also be checked by the promoter. The promotion should consider topical and geographical balance with the rest of the set, although this occurs at the time of promotion. CMD (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prerequisites for being a promoter are a willingness to learn in what can be a complex environment where everyone makes mistakes, and a can-do attitude. CMD (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no official requirement. I see you've already got a few DYK nominations done, so I assume you've also done a few individual reviews for QPQ. The next logical step would be doing some promotions. And as CMD said, you will make mistakes. Don't worry about it, everybody does. As long as you have a positive attitude about accepting guidance from those who came before you, you'll be fine. RoySmith(talk)12:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved in building Prep 7 and 1—5, which means I can't promote any of them to the queues. @RoySmith has already done Q6 so any help from other admins for the rest of the sets will be appreciated. Pinging @Kusma @Z1720. BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super thrilled by the lack of independent sourcing for the claim. Even if we are OK with attributing to Paglia the claim that the bans (BTW there seem to be only two, and "two" is shorter than "multiple" so might be better) were motivated by the film's (or perhaps Paglia's?) political incorrectness, we should have an independent source confirming that the film was indeed banned. Can this be improved? Or am I being too picky? Pinging nom @Morgan695, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @SL93. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this seems pretty marginal to me. In fact, I'm not convinced this meets the spirit of WP:DYKRULES ("long enough"). It's just barely over the 1500 character minimum, and a good chunk of that is the lead which just duplicates material from the body. 10% of the character count is the names of various film festivals.
I'm not even sure this meets WP:N; it might be better to merge it into Camille Paglia and work on getting that up to GA standard. I see a note on Talk: Camille Paglia that it was nominated for GA back in 2006, but not listed. Unfortunately, I can't find the GA nomination page. Did GA just not work that way back then? RoySmith(talk)14:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that, for my first GA in c. 2006, I just needed to list the article on the GA project page and add the GA icon to the article. If the article wasn't good enough someone would just remove it and tell me why. BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first GA nom and its review, from 2006: [1]. As you see, there was no separate page, just a comment on the talk page. The {{good article}} template that places the green plus on the article was not generally used until about 2010 (it was deleted and salted in 2006). —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, anyone was allowed to remove the GA template from the talk page. It was a very wiki but very random process, and for a long time, GA had a poor reputation as an unreliable marker of quality. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the very beginning, there wasn't any nomination process at all. I do remember I just decided to call one of my articles a GA, and it stayed as such for a while until a reviewer came along and demoted it lol.BorgQueen (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was such a long time ago, my memory about it is probably mixed up. I just searched through my talk page archives and seems you're right about the talk page nom. So there was a nomination process, albeit a very unreliable one. BorgQueen (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were right the first time. I was recently poking around the GA talk page archives and reading about how the process developed, and at the beginning it was in fact simply a matter of adding an article to a list. It looks like the nomination process began around April 2006. As a side note, it's interesting to see how close we came to the "good article" icon being a thumbs-up. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, "Barely over the 1500 character minimum" is still "over the 1500 character minimum". Either an article meets the minimum readable prose requirement or it doesn't, and this article does. Morgan695 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually find another source: [2]: "The New Festival [..] refused to screen Glennda and Camille Do Downtown." They mention Paglia's trashing of feminists and an altercation with AIDS activist group ACT UP. I am still not sure we should feature Paglia's opinion of her own film's reception so prominently. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve orange-tagged the article and note that after a recent copy-edit, it doesn’t meet the 1500 readable prose minimum. In its current form, the article is a stub and needs to be pulled. Schwede6619:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully it gets pulled soon. I have noticed that these discussions often don't get acted upon until the last minute. I see four admins in this discussion that can pull it now. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Gotta say that it leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth that this was done within a matter of hours without even a consideration of allowing the issues that were raised to be addressed by myself or the reviewer, and without even acknowledging my proposed alternate hook below. Morgan695 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you were disappointed, but there were multiple problems with this submission, clear consensus that it should be pulled, and we have more submissions than we have room to publish. RoySmith(talk)15:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus for the submission to be pulled? I see several editors raising concerns about the article and an extended off-topic discussion about GAR procedures, but I don’t think it necessarily follows that the remedy here is to pull the nomination. I’ve been contributing to DYK for many years now, and in that time have inevitably dealt with instances where concerns were raised about an article post-promotion, but I was always given the opportunity to at least address the raised concerns before any action was taken. It’s frankly pretty shocking to see a pull get rammed through as quickly as this one was, and I don’t think the article is so egregiously unsalvageable that such swift and brutal action was necessary. Morgan695 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgan695: I was just about to reopen the nom page, however I had a flick through the sources and discovered that of the seven, three are not independent, two are trivial mentions, and the rest are effectively episode listings. What makes this pass WP:GNG?--Launchballer01:38, 8 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]
@BorgQueen, Makeandtoss, and Vice regent:WP:DYKELECT says Nominations about contentious topics may be subject to greater scrutiny from reviewers and promoters. And WP:BLP also applies to recently deceased people. Both of those apply here. We used to have a rule (which I can't find in the newly "reorganized" WP:DYKCRIT) which talked about unnecessary gore. That certainly applies here. The article includes graphic descriptions of injuries and the body. Do we really need this on the main page? RoySmith(talk)00:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose with worms starting to eat his face is not only gory but redundant, as it is already stated that the corpse was decaying, therefore such infestations are normally expected after a certain period of time post mortem — so I agree that needs to be removed. BorgQueen (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was shocked and fascinated researching that article. There is a series out now about people and chimps but I have not been interested in seeing it, probably because of that article. The article gets quite a few views every day. Bruxton (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really enough to keep you safe, tbh. There used to be this trashy amusement park in Baton Rouge by where all of the old malls died, and they had a chain-smoking chimpanzee that would sometimes bust loose and prowl the boulevard trying to bum a cigarette from cars in traffic, smashing windows and ripping off side-view mirrors until the police rolled up. I think they took her to the water park; idk what folks are thinking when it comes to wild animals, Rjjiii (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People are usually the problem. Poor chimp! While we are on animals, I read all about the Thylacine after seeing it on the main page tonight. Good article which shows how people hunted it to extinction in Tasmania - getting paid by the government for killing them. And now it is on the Tasmanian coat of arms! Bruxton (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to pull the hook. The article may be a bit overly detailed, but the gore will not be on the Main Page, but in a section clearly labelled "dog attack" where it is not particularly surprising. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... that Kevin Mejía was the only Honduran to qualify directly for the 2024 Olympics?
From the source ("Fue el único hondureño en sellar su boleto mediante un clasificatorio") I see that he qualified through some qualifying tournament. How does this make the other three qualify "indirectly"? How did they qualify then?
Don't have much time at the moment, but I know that Mejia qualified by winning a qualification tournament – Each of the others representing Honduras only made it through 'universality' places, granted to smaller nations to give them more people to compete. I.e. Mejia was the only one to qualify through his own talents; the others made it just because the Olympics decided to give Honduras more competitors. Not sure if there's a better way to word it... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell us the exact wording you'd like then. I don't think that indirectly is really the best adverb to use in the hook, or that any adverb is a good solution for it, for that matter. BorgQueen (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bot's up. The image wasn't protected, so the bot couldn't do the update. It looks like the image is protected now, locally, but not on Commons. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM00:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks like KrinkleBot is down. I've left a note for its operators, but admins should be aware that images may need to be handled manually until that bot's back up. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM02:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal experience, the easiest way to handle Krinklebot downtime is to ping @CommonsAdmins on WP:DISCORD: there are usually several people online willing and able to quickly protect an image for a day or two. (I haven't been to the IRC server in quite a long time but expect it offers similar real time help). —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 9 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]
... 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]
... 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]
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]
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]