Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Active discussions


Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Nominations (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP:DYKA
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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

RfC on the Fivefold expansion ruleEdit

If I'm understanding the various discussion correctly, combining 1 and A gives us consensus at "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." This frees nominators from having to do an exhaustive search of an article's history. DYKCheck will need to be updated. —valereee (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(This is a question about the Fivefold expansion rule.) 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As seen by this nomination and the resulting discussion, there is a considerable amount of disagreement between DYK regulars over how to interpret Supplementary guideline A4. The responses fell in three main groupings (points of contention in red).

  • 1: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expansion started, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
  • 2: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article in the entire edit history, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
  • 3: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article in the last X months of the edit history, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.

There was also a considerable amount of discussion over the idea people have or may cut down an article and expand it later to try to make it eligible. In hopes of finding a way though these diverging views, which of these two options do you think best clarifies the fivefold expansion rule (updates in green)?

  • A: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
  • B: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article in the last 9 months of the edit history (assuming it was not shortened earlier in the edit history by the nominator), no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.

A is the minimalist position that a sizable portion of the discussion endorsed. B is my attempt at a middle path between opinions 2 and 3, above, based on further conversations.

Pinging editors from the free-form discussion @Narutolovehinata5, Gatoclass, Mandarax, Evrik, Lee Vilenski, Yoninah, Bloom6132, Serial Number 54129, David Eppstein, RLO1729, Ivar the Boneful, BlueMoonset, Buidhe, Shubinator, Alanscottwalker, Vanamonde93, Ruby2010, Amakuru, and Pawnkingthree:

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • 2 as this is very easy to measure with the DYKcheck tool. Otherwise, if the check fails, you might have to look through every revision in the last nine months to verify that it had never exceeded the size during that interval. buidhe 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe Well if we do choose to change the policy, the tool should be updated. We shouldn't let one person's creation of a tool dictate how we should do things. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As DYKcheck's creator and maintainer, I'm uncomfortable with its imperfect logic used as the basis for policy. See my comment in Special:Diff/958842090 about the interpretation of this rule when the tool was created. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A come closest to my interpretation. I would change "the day before the expansion started" to "the day before the expander began substantive work on it." Sometimes an article in bad shape is nominated for deletion and you cut it down to bare bones and then expand it from there. Assuming one person did both the cutting and the expanding, I would want to compare it to the article before they began any work on it. But "any" is a broad statement; I have articles on my watchlist and to do list that are in bad shape that I've been meaning to get around to doing something with them for years. Sometimes I'll make a minor copyedit to them, but I wouldn't think a single copyedit from 2-4 years or more ago would mean one should count from the day before the very first edit that editor ever made to the article. Of course, my wording would lead to endless questions about how one defines "substantive", but the idea is that we're looking for the beginning of the period of activity that lead to the article being nominated. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    IMO this encourages the creation of sockpuppets to reduce the article and then nominate for DYK. buidhe 17:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Buidhe: I blocked quite a few socks in my day and I haven't ever seen anyone try to do that. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    That's because the DYK rules were previously interpreted as meaning at any time in the past, so there would be no benefit to such behavior. If this rule were enacted it would be very easy to do and unlikely to be detected. Different people review different hooks and there's only a handful of people who are dedicated article rescuers anyway. A rule which enourages someone to break other, more important rules is never a good idea. buidhe 17:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    Not wishing to rehash the previous argument, but it's untrue to say that DYK rules have ever meant "at any time in the past". The rule says: "been expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days". That means it's five times bigger than the version of seven days ago, and with few exceptions that's the rule applied. Of course, if someone had obviously cropped an article with a view to re-expanding it, or simply reverted to an old longer version, then that should be disallowed but as Guerillo says there's no evidence this has happened, and it's IMHO unfair on genuine nominators and against the spirit of what this rule is there for, to expect them to have run a size check on every version of the article, just because someone might use this in bad faith.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    As has been pointed out in past discussions, a number of people, myself included, have never interpreted the rule the way buidhe states, and to see this claim made once again is most unfortunate. If some people did have this interpretation, more did not, as I think was established in the earlier discussion. Furthermore, invoking DYKcheck in this way ignores what Shubinator, the author of DYKcheck, stated about its origin, specifically that it was never written with 2 in mind, since it wasn't the process at the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • B is my favorite. I personally think that the risk of socking is over stated --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    I would also be okay with A --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not 2, needlessly penalizes nominators for prior actions which are not their fault. I find Gatoclass's argument here particularly convincing; additions that get reverted within hours definitely shouldn't count. I am not sure which one of the proposed options achieves the best balance to prevent gaming the system. Instead, I would support using the maximin 1-year stable length of the article over its entire edit history. Precise definition: Look at all possible 1-year windows since the creation of the article, and find the minimum length of the article during each window. Now take the maximum of all these lengths (including the length of the article the day before the expansion started, regardless of whether it has persisted for at least 1 year). Intuitively, this tries to find the longest stable version of the article, where "stable" is defined as "persisting for at least 1 year". It shouldn't be hard to update DYKcheck to do this check automatically, it's Algorithms 101 material. -- King of ♥ 18:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking of algorithms, what's the runtime of the proposed algorithm compared to the current algorithm? At a glance, it looks significantly worse, probably enough to render this component of the tool unusable - it's already the longest-running component, even with the speed of the current algorithm. Shubinator (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The current algorithm is linear-time, so if it's taking too long them most of the time must be spent on I/O calls and/or parsing each revision text. Even if we go with the naive quadratic implementation, I wouldn't expect a significant increase in runtime because it's dominated by the big constant multiplier on the linear term (as we can reuse the results computed for each revision). -- King of ♥ 06:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This is inaccurate, the current algorithm is not linear time. Shubinator (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see, just took a look at User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js. In that case we aren't even using 2 right now, we're using a sometimes inaccurate approximation of it. Given the computation cost of doing a linear scan through all the revisions (which would be required for any 100% correct algorithm), support 1 and A. -- King of ♥ 22:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A of the choices above. I've always felt a little uneasy about "in the history of the whole article", if for no other reason, that article standards have changed over the years, and were (IMO) fairly lax several years ago. Older articles passed muster with very little standards of sourcing, and some of them got their content size reduced years before, or any number of things. If we are to encourage users to expand articles, let's not box them in with standards that discourage their will to participate. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A has always been what I thought it was, and should be. I have seen cases where articles were bad before, got reduced in size, then were 5x'd from there and made good. The idea of DYK is to reward and promote the 'made good', regardless of how long ago or under what circumstances it was bad. I have not seen cases where people run socks to shorten an article just so it can be 5x'd. That seems like a long way to go. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A AS the centre of this point, I'll say what I had in the previous discussion. I've always taken the wording "as is" to mean the article at the point where the nominator found it and expansion started providing they haven't meddled with it shortly before. There is no requirement (nor should there be) for an editor to go delving into the history to find all the junk that was removed because that will put people off and not encourage further contributions. As for the point above about people making socks to game the system, even if that was a problem (which it isn't as I've never seen any evidence of anyone doing that), it would be fairly easy to spot by looking at editors contributions. It would be a lot of effort for little meaningful reward. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A fit my views closest. In most cases, the nominator was not even aware if there were any previously existing larger revisions, especially if they weren't among the original main contributors. Penalizing them for what they don't know would be unhelpful and would hurt good-faith editors. If there were any clear attempts to game the system, as these are relatively rare, they can be dealt with on an individual basis. On the other hand, for cases where an editor cuts an article then later returns to it to do a 5x expansion, they could be discussed on a case-by-case basis; passing or failing these would depend on the circumstances of the cut and expansion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Here we go with yet another RFC started with no warning and thus no discussion of the wording, which is almost always of crucial importance. Regardless, although the wording here is far from ideal, the meaning is hopefully clear enough, and my choices as I said in the previous discussion would be 1 and A, since the alternative would mean pointless additional work for reviewers, not to mention that expansions would always end up having to be made from the trashiest and most irrelevant previous version that other good faith users have already trimmed back over time. Gatoclass (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
But with regard to the wording, 1/ should probably read something like "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the version that existed prior to the expander or his collaborators beginning work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception) ..." - because "version" is more specific than "article" and there are clearly ambiguities in the phrase "the day before the expansion started", firstly because the previous version was not necessarily made the previous day (it might have been made the same day) and secondly and more importantly, because it could be misinterpreted to mean that the expander can trim the article as he pleases before starting the expansion, which is absolutely not the intended meaning here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, after taking a closer look at the alternatives, I am struggling to even understand why we need both the numbered and lettered alternatives, as the introductory statement for the lettered alternatives, There was also a considerable amount of discussion over the idea people have or may cut down an article and expand it later to try to make it eligible doesn't even make sense, and I can't see any substantive difference between the numbered and lettered alternatives anyway (except that there is no lettered version of 2/). Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: There were arguments over if there was a consensus in the previous discussion, so here we are. 1-3 was my attempt at summarize the previous discussion and A and B was my attempt to create a binary option based on further discussion. One of the reasons, I felt, that the previous discussion was hard to read was that it was a ternary. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A Not convinced a formal RfC is really necessary as consensus seemed fairly clear in the first discussion, but here we are. That a fivefold expansion can take place from the state in which you found the article seems to be straightforward, fair and in the spirit of DYK which is to encourage the expansion of stubs, not make users trawl through the entire history of an article for no good reason. P-K3 (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Guerillero: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Guerillero: Have you seen how this RfC is being shown in the listing pages, compared to others on the same list? Is WP:RFCBRIEF too much to ask for? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: "How should the the DYK fivefold expansion rule be clarified?" --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 or B Thank you. --evrik (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm completely confused as to what I should be doing. See Template:Did you know nominations/Héctor Suárez, where I decided to look at the edit right before the nominator began expansion, and did not find a 5x expansion. But looking at the next-to-last edit before expansion, it was a 5x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That's one of the problems with attempting too much precision. Sometimes the expansion involves more that one editor, working together or separately, as is the case here. DYKcheck reported that the expansion began on June 2, 2020, and coupled with the fact that it was nominated on June 3, well below seven days prior, should be sufficient. (The prior edit I check is the most recent edit prior to the day on which the expansion started, whether that's the day before or a week before, and regardless of whether there were more edits by other editors earlier on the day when the expansion began in earnest.) Obviously, more wordsmithing needs to be done. Gatoclass's proposed modifications to number 1 might help this, though "collaborators" might be too specific. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A combination of 1 and A, made as simple yet comprehensive as possible. The expansion shouldn't be restricted to the nominator/expander (see this example), and the seven-day limit reflects the beginning of the expansion to five times (as in 1). However, the point that Gatoclass makes with version that existed prior to the expander or his collaborators beginning work on it is well taken, given the concern about pre-expansion cuts, so something along those lines should probably be included (taking off from A). Going further back to such an earlier version for the five-times calculation should not affect the basic seven-days qualification period. Note that I wouldn't object to a variant of B, if it were made far shorter, on the order of one month or six weeks, or perhaps three months at the outside. Nine months is way too far beyond. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A: Adding my pile-on support here. It's just simpler to implement and is what I defaulted to in my 200-odd DYK reviews so far. SounderBruce 05:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 and A: honestly didn't realize there were other ways to interpret that. I agree with BlueMoonset that if B were shortened to a month or so it would be acceptable. Wug·a·po·des 23:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone think this needs a formal close, and if so does anyone object to my closing it now? —valereee (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I think we need to formally close this. In my mind, I think the consensus is to approve the proposal, bur I am unclear what we have agreed to. --evrik (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

We desperately need non-US hooks at the momentEdit

I just built out preps 7, 1, 2, 3 and 4, and by the end it was very difficult to find enough articles for region and topic balance. While DYK always struggles from an abundance of American hooks compared to the rest of the world, it's especially bad now. I didn't bother counting, but I'd say about 2/3rds are American-related. Complicating matters, 10% of all remaining hooks are by Dumelow and another 10% are by Hog Farm, and we can only run one hook per author per set.

I'm requesting that DYK regulars prioritize non-US topics when doing QPQs until we get a bit more balance in the available pool.

Also, with 60 hooks remaining and an average of 9 nominations a day for the last two weeks, we may need to go back to one set a day pretty soon.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You know technically, there's nothing in WP:DYKSG that actually says you can't do sets with multiple hooks from the same author. I know I've had sets where I've had more than one of my hooks in them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I've had two hooks in one set a couple of times. And if it makes people's lives easier, seems sensible. Although I agree that people doing QPQs on non-US hooks would be the most helpful solution. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It should really be avoided whenever possible; in the past, it has led to instances where two hooks about the same or similar topics were featured in one set, which led to complaints. Two hooks by the same author being featured in the same set has usually been done unintentionally and only rarely on purpose (usually for special events such as April Fools Day). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
If the articles are about completely different things, I don't see why it's an issue. When I had 2 hooks in one set in 2016, one was a road in Brighton, UK, and one was a Spanish football president. As long as the articles aren't similar in topic/country it relates to, I don't see an issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I haven't done a DYK review for a while, but I can see how much of the backlog is non-US and get to work on that, if it would help? We could also hold a drive with regional WikiProjects encouraging them to nom their articles and offer guidance. Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of non-US nominations which have not been reviewed or are still on the nomination page. Flibirigit (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
What Flibirigit said. The 2-a-days have relieved the approved noms backlog, but now we need reviews; it's absurd to go to 1-a-days when we have 300 unapproved noms, but we're going to have to because the prep builders can't build balanced preps with under 60 choices. We definitely don't need a drive for noms. :D —valereee (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Obviously not now, but if there's a consistent lack of non-US hooks, encouraging at least better DYK noms might be worth it in the future? Kingsif (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif, it is pretty consistent that we need to run 3-4 US-related hooks. It would be great if we got more from other areas. Sometimes it's a matter of a regular contributor who prefers to work by systematically covering a topic, and their current topic happens to be US-related. That may be what's happening now, over the past few years we'd been seeing a slight general trend toward more non-US hooks that had allowed us to go from pretty much always including 4 US hooks in every set to including 3-4. Or maybe that slight general trend was the artefact. :) It would be interesting to analyze. —valereee (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Or we could just start reviewing and approving the non-US hooks- there's enough of them in the backlog. I've done 3 DYK reviews from 3 nations (India, Nepal, France) today, so that should help a bit. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems to be that non-US articles make up the bulk of the older, stalled, nominations. --evrik (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Has this flipped completely the other way now? The current front page is arguably 7/8 non-American. CMD (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Good, 3-4 US hooks per queue was just a symptom of US-centric editing on Wikipedia. The more diversity in hooks and countries the better. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but given there have been some recent queues with more than 4 US-related hooks, this suggests there might be room to better balance each queue. CMD (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for your observation. Actually, DYK is a cyclical process. Sometimes we have way too many bios, sometimes none at all. Thanks to The Squirrel Conspiracy for his effort to nominate more non-U.S. hooks, together with more nominations by our foreign editors, we now have an abundance of non-U.S. hooks. We've also had long runs of Pennsylvania rivers, radio stations, ships, and Confederate battle sites. Inevitably the circle will turn again and we'll have something else to deal with. Our main concern right now, by the way, are hundreds of unreviewed nominations. If you'd like to do some reviews, it would be greatly appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
These seem too close together to be a cyclical issue. If there's a swing from a desperate need on 23 June to a all-but-one majority in 2 July that indicates to me that there might be a smoothing issue. I'm not suggesting anyone hasn't been doing great work here, just wondering about why the swing seems so significant and whether improvement is possible. It was possibly an anomaly, possibly an overcorrection (and I don't really know the rate at which hooks pass through the approved page and how they're selected for queues). As -valereee says the data would be interesting. I've done three reviews in the past week, but am still refamilisarising myself with the rules. Last time I remember spending time with them the limit was 5 days and there were no Good Articles! CMD (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, one thing that changed was we switched from promoting 2 sets a day (16 hooks) to one set (8 hooks) starting on June 24. We had been scrambling to balance the sets regionally for a few weeks. Now things are moving more slowly and nominations have caught up with the rate of promotion. Still, in building prep sets today, we have an overabundance of U.S. hooks... Yoninah (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Chipmunkdavis: you're invited to build a prep set. There are a lot of nominations that I've reviewed and/or nominated, which I can't promote. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking into it. Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions needs to be updated to refer to Template talk:Did you know/Approved. CMD (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if anyone wants to nominate it for some kind of hook, I've built out Hungarian-born London-based art critic Paul George Konody more than five-fold over the past few days. He has lots of interesting tidbits in his biography. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WugBot and DYKUpdateBotEdit

@Shubinator and Wugapodes: When User:DYKUpdateBot place a DYK notice, can we have it remove or deprecate the nomination notice left by User:WugBot?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrik (talkcontribs) 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Repinging Shubinator and Wugapodes, since pings attempted without a sig in the same post are not sent. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I don't think this is something WugBot could reasonably do itself since it doesn't really know what happens on the main page. It would probably need to be added to the update bot. Wug·a·po·des 22:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Not my request, Wugapodes. I was doing the ping as a courtesy since the original requester forgot their sig. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Wugapodes and BlueMoonset. --evrik (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Astrid GjertsenEdit

I'm asking for some assistance on Template:Did you know nominations/Astrid Gjertsen. The article was reviewed by TheJoebro64 and marked as fine (DYKtick added), but another user (Dyveldi, who doesn't appear to have ever had a DYK according to the QPQ check tool), has come out of nowhere and marked it as failed. I'm not sure how to proceed, as the article does meet all the DYK criteria, would otehr editors be able to look at this article and see what you think? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry I probably did not follow the correct procedure.
- The article basically stops 1986 and she died 2020 which means that 44 years of her life is missing. The taxi-receipts is given Wikipedia:Undue weight (sources)/Wikipedia:UNDUE since this seems to be the reason to put her on the front page and it is also given far too much space in the lead. Most of this story is missing from the article as well. This article is really not more than a draft / a rough sketch that should be worked with a lot more.
- The reason I am sure of this is when I found she was dead and added this to the article [[1]] I also noticed that the article was not in a good state and started looking for sources. The Norwegian article also needs some serious revision. I had the English on my watchlist and followed that to, but it sort of got nowhere important slowly. Our national library have scanned basically all books and newspapers and all of this is available on the netsite nb.no. I work slowly though and are nowhere near ready to rewrite the article. There are just too many sources to work quickly.
- Putting the article on the front page really should mean that it is representative of her life which this article is not. Using the scandal with the taxi receipts as an excuse is to me sensationalism. It was all over the newspapers and it turned out it was so clumsy it had to be discovered and it was a personal tragedy related to her husbands illness. This was understood and she was thouroughly forgiven, but obviously could not continues as minister. Her political life was more or less over, but the rest of her life did countinue and she did not stop making a difference. --regards Dyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 19:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You seem to have DYK confused with Featured Articles. These are the criteria for DYK:
  • Was the article created, expanded (5x), moved to mainspace, or promoted to Good Article status within 7 days of the nomination?
  • Is the article at least 1500 bytes long and not a stub?
  • Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?
  • Is the article free of material copied from other sources?
  • hook fact is backed by a source.
  • hook reasonably interesting?
  • If the hook has a picture, is it freely licensed?
  • Is the picture used in the article (hook image may be a crop of an article image)?
  • Check to make sure the nominator did a proper QPQ.

Astrid did appear on the main page ITN June 22, but it was under "Recent Deaths" and not a bolded link. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No I am not thinking of featured articles, please see comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Astrid Gjertsen. I am thinking it is not ok to have an article on the front page when the article is not ok. I am really seriously concerned about the article. Especially since the lead and the text meant for the DYK have tilted and so much is missing in the article. regards Dyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 20:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Maile, I think Dyveldi may be referring to Rule D7, which refers to whether the reviewer thinks the article is start-class or not. I've looked at the article and while it does leave out certain blocks of years, it covers both her personal life and her career with a broad stroke. This is enough for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. We are not putting the article on the main page, just the one-sentence blurb. It already had a link on the main page on June 22, so it's not like we're giving anymore access to the article than ITN did. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The question I have is whether the hook about the taxi receipts is a BLP issue: is it appropriate to put that fact on the front page? (Hooks giving a negative impression regarding other politicians have certainly been nixed in the past.) The other hook is probably more appropriate under the circumstances. I was also wondering about the Pavle Jovanovic hook in Prep 2: is this really a BLP-appropriate hook to be running? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: neither of those people are living. Yoninah (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, please see WP:BDP: The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death. As both of these were people whose articles were nominated within days of their death, the BLP rules still apply to their articles and hence their DYK nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for enlightening me. Yes, the hook is negative. I'll ask for a new hook at the nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, thanks for pursuing this. Any thoughts about the Pavle Jovanovic hook? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah I sent you an e-mail which incorporated what I was able to find out. Google translate is a useful, albeit imperfect, tool. Maybe that suggests a more balanced approach. While the expense voucher/taxi receipt thing is a catchy hook, given that this is essentially a substitute for a recent deaths mention, we ought to look at her whole life and work, and not overemphasize a 40 year old conviction. Doing so is giving it undue weight. Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen () 19:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps a lot. Moving this discussion back to the nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If we aren't running the Astrid Gjertsen hook then the same has to apply to Pavle Jovanovic (bobsledder): that article is also a recent death (<2 months ago) and the hook is also focusing on a negative aspect (drugs ban). If that hook stays then that is just double standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
We're changing it. Just waiting for User:7&6=thirteen's reply. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Different facts. I would also say that the article on Pavle Jovanovic as I drafted it had even more explanatory (and comparative) material about steroids in OTC products being sold to competitive athletes. Some of our esteemed editors didn't like the contextual material, and opined that the 'skater tangent' wasn't relevant. I disagree. That he tested positive for a banned substance was true; but his intent was not to cheat, but only to compete. I would also add that Pavle's article was in the DYK process for an extended period; and evidently I (and the nomination) am being sniped at because I answered the call for perspective on this article. I had no interest in this article, but did try to help.
Of course, perverse results in Wikipedia (e.g., see the results at recent deaths in WP:ITN, including Jovanovic) come with the territory. 7&6=thirteen () 01:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: do you have any more insight here? Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Pile on. You too an keep Pavle Jovanovic (bobsledder) off the main page. Again. 7&6=thirteen () 21:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I was thinking we could go with the "feared brakemen" quote from the first line in Career (source 6 has the original), either with or without the U.S. Olympic team officials (not sure we need a link to "bobsleigh" when there's one for "Bobsleigh World Cup"):

Thanks. I'm fine with either. 7&6=thirteen () 01:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  •   Done Great, thanks. I'll promote ALT4 before they promote it to the queue. Yoninah (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Q3 2 July Concern about Fielding Wright hookEdit

Some research into Dixiecrats earlier led me to the Fielding L. Wright article, where I posted about some concerns I have about how the article covers (or rather minimizes) the hardline segregationist, racist stances of the former governor and Dixiecrat VP candidate. Saw that it's also up for DYK, and want to register concern about the hook: "... that Mississippi Governor Fielding L. Wright had a $50,000 lawsuit filed against him by an Imperial Emperor of the Ku Klux Klans of America?". It's not wrong, so perhaps it can be chalked up to nominator/reviewer discretion, but it's worth pointing out that it's somehow highlighting the one fact from the article that can make it seem like he's somehow not closely aligned with the Klan (who were, of course, among his supporters). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: this nomination has been promoted, and the hook is in Queue 3, which is set to hit the main page in three days. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Presumably I am alone in seeing an issue with this? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm British but I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. The hook is sourced and in the article. What's the problem? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the problem is an article about a hardline segregationist and overt racist appearing on the main page with a hook that makes it seem like he was at odds with the Klan. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
For transparency, I've posted about this at WT:BLM. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It just says he got sued, not that he endorsed the Klan or not. We do need to remember that WP:NOTCENSORED applies at all times and especially to history where values were different back then (no matter whether we agree with them or find them abhorrent). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fielding L. Wright Pinging nom Jon698 —valereee (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • ALT1: ... that when Dixiecrat Fielding L. Wright died in 1956, Strom Thurmond called it "a tremendous loss to the South". —valereee (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This definitely seems like an improvement FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not like that hook. It is boring and there is nothing unique about it. How about we just add "segregationist" or "anti-civil rights" to my hook before Fielding's name? - Jon698 talk 21:23 30 June 2020
ALT2: ... that (segregationist or anti-civil rights) Mississippi Governor Fielding L. Wright had a $50,000 lawsuit filed against him by an Imperial Emperor of the Ku Klux Klans of America?
"Segregationist" and "anti-civil rights" isn't in article? —valereee (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: The article states multiple times that he opposed civil rights legislation. He was also the vice presidential nominee of a pro-segregation and anti-civil rights party. - Jon698 talk 21:31 30 June 2020
  • (from WT:BLM) I like ALT2 better than ALT1 FWIW, and ALT0 I think is misleading. I also think it's weird to not identify him as a Dixiecrat since that is what he is best known for: being a racist politician that opposed the civil rights movement. (His NYT obituary was headlined "Fielding Wright, '48 Dixiecrat, Dies" [2]. See also [3] [4] [5].) I have some WP:V and WP:NPOV concerns that I will raise shortly at the article talk page. These concerns aside, though, my thanks and congratulations to the editors who worked on the article, GA and DYK noms--good job. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 21:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    My comments are at Talk:Fielding L. Wright#Sources. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Levivich[dubious – discuss] 02:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Levivich, great work at the article talk. Levivich thinks the article needs more work before being on the front page due to NPOV issues. Does anyone else think it needs to be switched out before it appears tomorrow? I don't have a strong opinion; we don't generally require perfection, but on the other hand the issue is NPOV. Pinging Gatoclass Vanamonde93 Maile66 Lee Vilenski Casliber Amakuru Guerillero —valereee (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Added a sentence about his support of racial segregation. The problem I am having is that most of the results for whenever I search his name are either short blurbs or pictures of him. - Jon698 talk 22:39 30 June 2020
  • I've added 'and segregationist' to the hook —valereee (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Any hook that doesn't mention his white-supremacism/segregationsis stance is effectively whitewashing by ommission. Which would be a great look for the man page... ——Serial # 12:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: good choice. I'll fill up the prep set again. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixing redirects and changed links in the nominationsEdit

So the article that is the subject of this nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Pauline Monastery (Budapest) changed names three times in a 24 hour period. After we settled on a name, I went back to fix the internal links on the template. As it is, right now, the links point to a double redirect to a disambig page. I have been reverted 2x by another editor who says I am editing againt policy. This has also affected Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_7. So, what policy a I breaking and where is it listed? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

evrik, it says not to edit right on the closed template you keep trying to edit: The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. You were modifying the page, so I reverted you. Twice. For Prep 7, the hook and the DYKmake there do get updated when articles are moved (I only reverted you there because the article hadn't been moved yet and there was no guarantee it would move), but we don't go back to already closed DYK nomination templates. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, you are correct, that's what the template says - but I think some discretion in fixing the internal links may benefit the work we do. Just saying. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The links in the template are still "double redirects." I'll see if I can fix the redirects. --evrik (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, the instruction is at Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_move_a_nomination_subpage_to_a_new_name —valereee (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Valereee, FWIW, I didn't change the name of the nomination page, just the internal links. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear then, this is not a policy issues, but is past practice based on the template wording. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is current practice based on the template instructions, yes. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, then. I'm okay with the template as it is, but how do we formulate some practical application exception? --evrik (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

2 queues are ready to be loadedEdit

@Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanadmonde93:@Lee Vilenski:@Guerillero:@Valereee:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Re-ping @Vanamonde93: Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Local update timesEdit

Hi all

Just wondering what people think about the idea of moving the UTC column at Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes to be the first, ahead of Los Angeles time? Personally I would find this quite useful because UTC is the main timezone used by Wikipedia and it would enable me to tell at a quick glance without having to scan along the list, which date we're associating with that queue/prep, for special occasion hooks and suchlike. As things stand, using LA time, the first date you see in the table is always one day prior to the actual Wikipedia date of that set (except when we are running 2-per-day and it's the afternoon).

Sort of like this:

UTC Los Angeles New York London New Delhi Tokyo Sydney
Queue 4 10 July
00:00
9 July
17:00
9 July
20:00
10 July
01:00
10 July
05:30
10 July
09:00
10 July
10:00

Thoughts? Too controversial? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks a little confusing. The first box is July 2, the second box is July 1, and two boxes later is back to July 2. Personally, I can work with the current way the chart looks. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Flibirigit (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, maybe we could just color that column something different, or bold it, so it would be easy to scan. I always have to do the same thing -- scan over to see which date I'm working on. —valereee (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Valereee that certainly sounds a good suggestion. My point is that UTC is the "main" time that should be shown, and it's the only one I really want to read from that table. I think most of us have probably internalised the calculation from UTC to our own timezones anyway (I know it's always the same in the winter and +1 in the summer for me), and all other dates on Wikipedia are always rendered UTC. If we can get consensus for the bolding of the UTC column I'd support that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, what about a single-column table for UTC, then beside but not part of the same table a multi-column table so people could find their own time zone? That's basically what you're looking for but would prevent any confusion. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Valereee, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and BlueMoonset: Taking in mind that prep buiders also use that chart. Personally, I don't go by the UTC column, but generally across to the appropriate one for a special date. UTC column is not one I necessarily look at. What do the prep and queue builders think? This would visually work better if you moved Los Angeles and New York to the right side of Sydney, instead of moving UTC. Just switching UTC to the far left by itself is confusing. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I always look to the UTC column, but that's primarily because UTC is aligned with GMT. I'm happy with it how it is now, or having the UTC column highlighted in colour would be good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally would find it confusing to have the times out of order, rather than increasing from left to right. It could be decreasing left to right, I suppose, but please don't cross the date line in the middle of a row. UTC has a bit of emphasis because it's a bold wikilink up top. I suppose we could bold the UTC column, if people are having trouble locating it in the table (I don't advise a background color)—the coding might be annoying, but I'm sure I could add the bolding if people agree it's a worthwhile feature. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your statement, Maile. I just had a nomination that wanted to run on July 15 at 9:27 UTC. With the chart the way it is presently, all I could offer was July 15 00:00 UTC, which of course would be the evening hours of July 14 in the United States. Since we're only running one set a day, a July 15 special occasion request would have to run on July 15 00:00 UTC. I don't see any benefit to pushing the UTC time to the front of the line. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah I'm not the one who wants to push the UTC time to the front of the line. That's Amakuru. Unless I misunderstand his original post, he wants to move the UTC column to the first column on the left. I don't think he's suggesting altering the time itself - only flipping the columns around to what he wants to see first. All I'm saying, which is what I think BlueMoonset is also saying, is that it would knock the visuals out of chronological order, and be confusing. In the case you are referring to, Amakuru's change would not affect that, nor would keeping everything as is (which is what I'm saying). — Maile (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's keep everything as is! Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd actually find bolding the UTC column helpful, especially now that the table is so long. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Qibla observation by shadowsEdit

Hello, I nominate a Qibla observation by shadows hook for 15 July spot because it's about a twice-a-year phenomenon that will happen on that day (the other day has already passed for this year). I admit I was kind of late to nominate it, and it might not be reviewed in time. Could some one be kind enough to review it soon? HaEr48 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  Done I reviewed the nomination and moved it to the Special Occasion holding area for July 15. I also reserved the image slot for it in Prep 2. @HaEr48: Just a heads-up: because of our 24-hour schedule, the article will start its appearance on the main page in the evening hours the day before in the United States. But there's not much that can be done about it, except holding it over for July 16 UTC 00:00. Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thank you very much! I don't think timezone is a problem. The actual event happens on 12:27 Saudi Arabian Time, which is 9:27 UTC on the same day, so it is still good for July 15 UTC. It only happens on that one moment of the day, not throughout the day. HaEr48 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Former TFA as DYKEdit

Should a former featured article (indeed, once “today’s featured article”) - but since demoted - be eligible for DYK? For example if it later attains GA status. Should the nominator disclose its history? 82.132.229.97 (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article's talk page has its entire history in that regard. Hopefully, the nominator would not delete the talk page templates that show that history. But this does bring up a different question. DYK eligibility criteria only says, "If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility." I don't find any rules about for a former TFA being excluded from a subsequent DYK nomination. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be a very miniscule number of articles that would get to FA status, feature on the main page, then lose that status completely. So I see no problem with this little quirk IF it ever occurred since as Maile said, the rules don't prohibit it so we should default to that old common law adage: everything which is not forbidden is allowed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

“IF”? “Hollaback Girl” is on the Main Page right now. It was a featured article for nine years. It seems very much against the spirit of DYK to me, even if it is not written down in “The Rules” (more what you’d call guidelines, really).

Ok, so today’s top tip to those seeking DYK glory: look through the list of former featured article and find a few that can be “upgraded” to GA status without too much effort, for some quick wins. 82.132.229.97 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you think you "win" for an article being on DYK? Certainly nothing of physical value. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess the question is ... why does this bother you? One of the outstanding objectives of DYK is to get editors to improve articles. That happened. If any wins are to be had here, it was Wikipedia, that got a cleaned up and improved article out of this. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly what I would say. Between this and last month's bickering about fivefold increases on articles which were longer at some distant point in the past, I really wonder what people think we're here for and why the desire to throw so many bureaucratic hurdles at editors who just want their work to get some space in the limelight. I think most articles demoted from FA would be in poor condition at that point, so if someone has later gone through the hoops of improving it back to GA then good for them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm rather dubious about this - most articles demoted from FA in recent times still meet GA status, or very nearly so, indeed there have in the past been discussions as to whether they should sometimes/usually go straight to a GA status - obviously this wasn't adopted. The work involved in formally getting GA status for an ex-FA may well be pretty minimal. I'd imagine with the right article & right reviewer some would make GA without any work at all, especially if some was done for FAR. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page history, it wasn't so simple. It was demoted over 4 years ago, had a failed GAC in 2016, and went through Peer Review and GAC in 2020. And then again, it could have just been a music fan who wanted to contribute. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
We're talking about the general principle, no? I haven't looked at the specific case here. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I see. OK. Got it. 19:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to ban former FAs from DYK per se; it's a relatively small number of articles anyways. However, TFAs are another matter and should be banned based on the spirit of criterion 1d, which is that articles which have already shown up on the Main Page should not appear again as DYK. -- King of ♥ 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well ... you could start an RFC section on the talk page here. BlueMoonset I think you've been at DYK longer than I have. Do you know why TFA (or TFL) would not be specified in the rules as not eligible based on a previous Main Page appearance? — Maile (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    It also doesn't Prohibit previous POTD entries from appearing on DYK. And of course things can always appear several times in the opposite order. DYK -> ITN -> TFA -> OTD -> POTD  — Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but who's going to be so pedantic to do all that? We're talking about a very very small chance that a tiny percentage of editors are actively hunting former FAs to make them DYKs purposfully. Please not another RFC, we still haven't got over that last one that's still going. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)
  Idea:Maybe we could have an RFC for DYK to cease and desist RFCs during a given time, to keep editors from punching their mouse thingies and moaning, "No ... no .... stop the madness..." :-) :-) — Maile (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Maile, the reason the rules don't mention former TFAs is because when DYK started, the only possibilities were new articles or newly expanded articles, and no former FA had a chance at qualifying as either. With GAs added to the mix in recent years, then it suddenly becomes possible for a former TFA to be delisted, and the article to later be improved to the point that it becomes a GA (and thus eligible for DYK, assuming it had never been at DYK before). TFL wouldn't have been specified because lists are not eligible to become GAs and thus they couldn't qualify for DYK barring a 5x expansion, which I doubt would be feasible. (I also think TFL is a comparatively recent addition to the main page, so it wouldn't even have been a possibility when the DYK criteria were put together. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Articles that have already been featured on the Main Page should not appear again as DYK. --evrik (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. Especially a TFA, which has featured on the main page in the most prominent spot and had an entire section devoted to it. If we hadn't specifically forbidden it, it's because it wasn't possible before given the DYK process. In recent times we have added OTD to ITN in order to stop that back door; there's no reason not to add TFA to that list, or even be more general to prevent DYK from being allowed if the article has been a bold link in any of the main page sections (exempting, of course, where the link is part of Recent deaths or OTD birth and death links without any accompanying text). I'm not sure whether all of them could be checked, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggested re-wording. BTW, Shubinator will need to code Did you know/DYKcheck to include a previous TFA or TFL in its check. — Maile (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, "Today's Featured Article", "Today's Featured List" or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.""
Maile. I'm pretty sure this comment isn't placed where you wanted it, but I'm not absolutely positive... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Oops! - Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If we're changing it, can we also add an explicit mention of recent deaths still being eligible? This comes up every 2 or 3 months for me. Not helped by the fact that DYKcheck sees the "In the news" talkpage banners for recent deaths, and so the check suggests the article isn't eligible. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this because it is very much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here. We are talking a minuscule number of articles that utilise a little quirk in the rules which is fairly harmless and doesn't hurt the project. It seems a lot like WP:CREEP here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This proposed change is not rules creep. It is filling a loophole.

As I understand it, the principle behind the rule is that each article gets just one chance to be featured at DYK, but not if it has already been featured prominently elsewhere on the Main Page. What goes for ITN and OTD should apply, a fortiori, to their bigger siblings, TFA and TFL and indeed POTD. If the article has been a bolded link anywhere, it doesn’t get on again. (This is not the first former featured article to appear at DYK - for example, Richard Feynman and Starship Troopers; there may be others.)

Pointing no fingers, but as a dispassionate observer, it is disheartening to see the spirit of entitlement and rule-lawyering that surrounds DYK. If there is any rules creep, it is because of people trying to rule-lawyer around the edges of the basic principles to get a reward that apparently does not exist. It is a privilege not an entitlement. Let it go. 82.132.231.187 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link where Richard Feynman was on the main page as DYK, after he was TFA? The talk page on his article says he was DYK on August 31, 2016, even though the Aug 31, 2016 archive does not list him . Two years later, he was TFA on his 100th birthday May 11, 2018. Nevertheless, DYK guidelines do not affect what TFA does with its own section. — Maile (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Q1 July7Edit

Template:Did you know nominations/The Ickabog

Joseph2302

Using "featured" here confused me. The article says "wearing a dress containing the "lost manuscript" of The Ickabog." The source says 'attended her 50th birthday fancy dress party as a “lost manuscript” and wrote on a dress most of what was then an unidentified book.' Which to me sounds like she dressed up in a costume that portrayed her as a "lost manuscript", and that she'd created the costume by writing the words of the manuscript on her dress. At any rate, I'm wondering if we need to clarify both at the article and hook, or if this is perfectly clear to everyone else? —valereee (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: How about: ... that the "lost manuscript" of The Ickabog was seen on the dress? Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me, I was using featured as a synonym for seen, but I guess seen would be clearer for non-native English speakers (becaused featured has many meanings). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ya know, I can live with 'was featured on', so compromise YAY. —valereee (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/ErrorsEdit

Currently, on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors at "Errors in Did you know ...", the "Next DYK" points to Queue 6 and "Next-but-one DYK" points to Q1, which should now be Q7? JennyOz (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@JennyOz: the issues was in the Template:Did you know/Queue/After next, which was assuming there were six queues and hadn't been updated for the switch to seven. I have now fixed this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing @Amakuru:! JennyOz (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Did You KnowEdit

That Wikipedia is nakedly partisan, calling Trumps rally a photo-op? Or that they make bad low jokes about birds? And that they attack the president the day after the Fourth of July? Shameful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not trolling, and I’m not joking: there needs to be a serious discussion as to how this was allowed on the front of English Wikipedia’s main space. Who allowed this? And why did no one object? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
CNN (among many others) called it a photo-op. Wikipedia didn't invent that just to have a hook on the main page. It's sourced. We don't censor. Click on the link and read the article, and all the sourcing. That's your answer. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
So we are blaming the media’s partisanship for this? Sad that Wikipedia presents it like it’s a “fact”, when it’s not. And what is the explanation for the poor humor? It’s not even April 1, when such jokes are held for. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably not a good idea to mention CNN in relation to this. Personally I don't like that title either, especially if we are relying on a CNN report for it given they aren't exactly unbiased when it comes to President Trump. However that being said, NOTCENSORED has to apply here just like it does for any other article. DYK has to be a level playing field for all articles, no matter how controversial they may be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E:, with all due respect to you personally, the day he did this, you couldn't turn on radio or TV or most any other American media - local and national- without hearing a discussion of the "photo-op". That term was the description numerous media outlets used in its coverage. I said "among others". CNN was but one of the sources in the article. We don't hide our sources. I would also make the argument that "unbiased" modern media - either direction in almost any country - is as rare as hen's teeth. And if anyone thinks Wikipedia should not use a given standard media outlet, then perhaps take it to Jimbo's talk page. — Maile (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
We are indeed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you're off-base here. If you have issues with the article, take them there. As for the DYK process, you could have weighed in at any time. As for the substance, it speaks for itself. --evrik (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does speak for itself, it speaks to the abandoning of NPOV on the main page of Wikipedia. It also speaks to a disrespect for the project and it’s goals. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What specifically was NPOV about the hook or the article? It was reported as a photo-op all over the place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
”Did you know people were injured so the president could take a picture?” That’s what Wikipedia calls a “fact” now? No discussion of how they tried to destroy a historic church? No context at all that the president was standing against mobs that are destroying American culture, churches, statues, history? Nope! Just “president needed a selfie, so chemicals used on crowd”. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Take your issues with the facts to the article. The main page hook was neutral, and based off the article. --evrik (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The "discussion" and "context" you talk about are not relevant to the hook itself, which was factually accurate. Chemical dispersants were used, the crowd was peaceful. The vast majority of sources called it a "photo-op", and there was consensus at the article talk page that the title was appropriate. And Trump's reasons for going there are discussed in the article. P-K3 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The fundamental issue here is that we define neutrality not based on what the general public believes to be neutral, but on what reliable sources say. As such Judgesurreal's concern is understandable, but has no basis in policy, and in fact reflects a disagreement with core Wikipedia policies more than anything on that page. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fivefold expansion time limit?Edit

Hi over at Template:Did you know nominations/Buffalo police shoving incident I queried the character count because the article was created with text from another article. It was close but it wasn't fivefold expanded. The nominator has now expanded the article a bit more and put it over the fivefold boundary, so I am wondering if this is a case where not exactly applies and I can continue with the review. Thanks for any help. Mujinga (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I answered on the template. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Great thanks, in that case I'll carry on with the review. Mujinga (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

HistoryEdit

The south African constitution has never been adopted by any country? Tshidi ke Tshidi (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Error message from DYK Update botEdit

"Invalid credit template: 3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)Hog Farm (give) (tag) –View nom subpage" The template is exactly as it was on the nomination template before promotion, so I don't see what is erroneous about it. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when the very incorrect DYKmake template was corrected in the nomination template's second edit, instead of "subpage" being the parameter of the final field, it was entered as "nompage". As "nompage" is not a valid field name, DYKUpdateBot naturally threw an error. Maile, I see that you've issued the appropriate credit on the article's talk page; can you please also do so for its creator? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just added the credits on the article page and the editor's page. It's been a very long time since I've done that manually, so I hope I got them correct. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Did you know".