Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and Rules | |
Introduction and rules | WP:DYK |
Supplementary rules | WP:DYKSG |
Reviewing guide | WP:DYKR |
General discussion | |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Nominations | |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
On the Main Page | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
DYK Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
List of users... | |
By nominations | WP:DYKNC |
By promotions | WP:DYKPC |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186 |
• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs |
Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Backlog mode
I have added a new heading so the backlog mode discussion can be found more easily when it has been archived. TSventon (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's worth noting that this is not because we have few DYKNs coming in, but because DYKN is seriously backlogged. I heard a suggestion to give DYKNs WikiCup points (2.5 for submitting, 2.5 for reviewing, to avoid people who create DYKs getting "free" points for QPQ) and I think something like that would be good to try. Maybe even a DYKN backlog drive, in the style of GAN backlog drives? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Trainsandotherthings, if you are interested in the question of backlog drives there was a discussion about them earlier this month here. TSventon (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- That discussion wasn't all that fruitful and now the backlog is even larger with 207 hooks needing to be approved and 63 approved hooks. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think one issue is that most of the "delayed" nominations are noms that are quite difficult to review, either due to being mostly reliant on technical sources, or due to their subject matter (usually politics). A backlog drive would be nice but given the circumstances a backlog was probably inevitable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- We have a mechanism all set up for dealing with large numbers of unapproved nominations per the RfC last summer and subsequent discussions: extra QPQs for experienced DYK nominators. The suggestion of a GAN-style DYK backlog drive was roundly panned at the time. Pinging EEng, who worked so hard to devise the process and shepherd the RfC to completion, to help get it rolling for real. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Me and my big mouth -- I've been dreading this day for the last 12 months. Yes, we came to a policy decision as BMs describes, but what hasn't been done (I think -- haven't been watching DYK) is to set up the automation that will identify editors subject to the new requirement. We may need to use the honor system temporarily. Give me a few days to review where we are and recruit technical firepower. EEng 06:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: I'm happy to help :) fools rush in, etc. I think the most straightforward way is to add a note to the {{NewDYKnomination}} template. Something like "effective 30 May 2022, DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode". All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior DYK nominations will require an extra QPQ." That way, it'll appear on all new nominations (but not currently open nominations) until we remove it, and timestamps itself. Beyond that, we already use the honour system anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- What I'm vaguely remembering is we needed some new machinery for counting "credits" or whatever we called them. EEng 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: You mean like User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json that @SD0001 mentioned below? —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- EEng, you were quite insistent that "credits" were to be a thing of the past; the only thing that mattered was nominations, which were set as the determinant going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I said " new machinery for counting credits or whatever" -- I remembered there was to be some change in what was counted, just couldn't remember what the change was. (I'm not Superman, you know, despite appearances.) Now that you mention it, that's exactly right. I've been reviewing the two big archived threads and there's a lot to it. It seems they ended with intentions to install new apparatus (template behavior at when new noms are saved etc.) and from other discussion some thought or work has been put into that, but not clear what still needs to be done to make it seamless. It actually sounds like others are more up to speed on the current status than I am, though I'm happy to help once I've got my sea legs again. EEng 12:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- EEng, you were quite insistent that "credits" were to be a thing of the past; the only thing that mattered was nominations, which were set as the determinant going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: You mean like User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json that @SD0001 mentioned below? —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- What I'm vaguely remembering is we needed some new machinery for counting "credits" or whatever we called them. EEng 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a way to add a note on the DYK script that most editors use? It also doesn't support natively adding multiple "reviewed" pages without manually typing, say,
{{subst:dykn|ArticleA}} and {{subst:dykn|ArticleB}}
in the window. Some editors might miss this otherwise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)- The DYK-helper tool is maintained by @SD0001, so that feature should probably be taken up with them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There should be a page from which DYK-helper can get to know if backlog mode is currently active. For instance, we can adopt WP:Did you know/unreviewed backlog mode to read
enabled
ordisabled
as the case may be – which could then be used by templates/scripts. Let me know once this is created – I'll then update the script accordingly. – SD0001 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)- If a switch like that is added, it should also be used to conditionally display a backlog notice at the top of Template talk:Did you know. —Kusma (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There should be a page from which DYK-helper can get to know if backlog mode is currently active. For instance, we can adopt WP:Did you know/unreviewed backlog mode to read
- The DYK-helper tool is maintained by @SD0001, so that feature should probably be taken up with them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json is already in place that records nom counts and is updated in real-time, which can be read by
{{subst:NewDYKnomination}}
to determine if the current user needs a 2nd QPQ. (For 9 months now, server resources are being wasted on keeping that page up-to-date despite zero use – maybe that will change now :)) – SD0001 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)- @SD0001: oh, that's actually incredible, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- is there a page where the nominations themselves are available? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- @EEng: I'm happy to help :) fools rush in, etc. I think the most straightforward way is to add a note to the {{NewDYKnomination}} template. Something like "effective 30 May 2022, DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode". All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior DYK nominations will require an extra QPQ." That way, it'll appear on all new nominations (but not currently open nominations) until we remove it, and timestamps itself. Beyond that, we already use the honour system anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- What would be needed to actually start the 2 QPQs per nomination rule? SL93 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Me and my big mouth -- I've been dreading this day for the last 12 months. Yes, we came to a policy decision as BMs describes, but what hasn't been done (I think -- haven't been watching DYK) is to set up the automation that will identify editors subject to the new requirement. We may need to use the honor system temporarily. Give me a few days to review where we are and recruit technical firepower. EEng 06:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- We have a mechanism all set up for dealing with large numbers of unapproved nominations per the RfC last summer and subsequent discussions: extra QPQs for experienced DYK nominators. The suggestion of a GAN-style DYK backlog drive was roundly panned at the time. Pinging EEng, who worked so hard to devise the process and shepherd the RfC to completion, to help get it rolling for real. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think one issue is that most of the "delayed" nominations are noms that are quite difficult to review, either due to being mostly reliant on technical sources, or due to their subject matter (usually politics). A backlog drive would be nice but given the circumstances a backlog was probably inevitable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- That discussion wasn't all that fruitful and now the backlog is even larger with 207 hooks needing to be approved and 63 approved hooks. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have added a backlog tag to at least alert people. —Kusma (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- If something like this is added to the WikiCup, I'd rather go for 4/1. A DYK review isn't like half a GA review. —Kusma (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Trainsandotherthings, if you are interested in the question of backlog drives there was a discussion about them earlier this month here. TSventon (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I may be honest, I have some skepticism as to whether the planned backlog mode (i.e. two QPQs for editors with 20+ nominations) is going to help out much in the long run. One reason is basically simple arithmetic: if the number of nominations being made exceeds the number of QPQs being done, it doesn't matter if nominators are providing one or two QPQs, a backlog will still build up over time. Secondly, not all nominators meet the 20 nominations requirement: many nominations are done by editors who have 6-19 nominations and so would be exempted from this requirement. If they too make nominations without more work being done on the backlog, the backlog would still get bigger and bigger. Finally, the way I see it, it's not that people don't want to review nominations, or not enough people are doing them. The backlog isn't necessarily anyone's fault. The issue is that many nominations are controversial from the get-go owing to their content. For example, I cannot blame anyone from being discouraged from reviewing any nomination that has to do with Israel-Palestine considering how much of a hot potato that topic is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of nominations are made by people with over 20 nominations. Just Gerda, Corachow, Epicgenius, Sammi Brie, Z1720, you and me together have something like 25 nominations on the page right now. 25 extra QPQs done would significantly reduce the number of unreviewed noms, and I would expect the number of affected noms to be closer to 50. I take your point that some nominations are more attractive to review than others, but I don't see how we can change that.
- The question is what else can we do? We could fail all nominations that haven't been reviewed after four weeks (like at FAC) or reject nominations where the QPQ is provided late, but (unlike the proposal) these would not change the fundamental issue that we need more reviews than people are required to provide as QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hopefully the planned backlog mode is a short term measure and won't need to be used too often. theleekycauldron posted a chart here, showing that the number of unapproved nominations went down to below fifty in August-September in both 2020 and 2021. DYK depends on some editors reviewing more nominations than they need to, offsetting nominations by new editors that do not require a QPQ, and hopefully backlog mode will encourage them to help. Backlog mode will probably also encourage prolific contributors to divert some time from nominations to doing reviews which can be used later as QPQs. If some of those reviews are of more difficult nominations, they will still be useful. TSventon (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I generally think we should encourage people to do QPQs before they nominate articles. Currently I count seven nominations by highly experienced nominators lacking a required QPQ, needlessly making the backlog worse. Personally I find it much less stressful to use one of my stack of QPQs than to have to scramble for one at nomination time. —Kusma (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hopefully the planned backlog mode is a short term measure and won't need to be used too often. theleekycauldron posted a chart here, showing that the number of unapproved nominations went down to below fifty in August-September in both 2020 and 2021. DYK depends on some editors reviewing more nominations than they need to, offsetting nominations by new editors that do not require a QPQ, and hopefully backlog mode will encourage them to help. Backlog mode will probably also encourage prolific contributors to divert some time from nominations to doing reviews which can be used later as QPQs. If some of those reviews are of more difficult nominations, they will still be useful. TSventon (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Has a bot reminding editors about late QPQs ever been considered? For example, if a nomination doesn't have a QPQ and one hasn't been provided after seven days, a bot will leave the nominator a talk page message reminding them to do a QPQ. Of course, that's only if the nominator actually needs to be a QPQ. I imagine it could be a bit tricky to code, but it could help I guess. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kusma Good luck with that. I just brought up the QPQ issue at the nomination of a major DYK nominator and they asked why I have it in for the nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Technical stuff from the old discussions
I may be way behind the times, but I believe WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#Start and End (and following section) is (or was) a key starting point for technical implementaion ideas. Who are our techies on this? Wugapodes, for startes? Wug, can you ping other techies involved? Possibly this is entirely obsolete but it's where my brain left off, anyway. EEng 03:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ping Wugapodes. TSventon (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wugapodes did you see this? Who else needs to be involved? TSventon (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TSventon and EEng, sorry I missed these pings. What's needing done? Implementing a "some people need two QPQs" system? SD0001 had some ideas in that previous thread but to my knowledge no one's worked on anything yet. — Wug·a·po·des 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's probably best if we both go back to the top of WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#RfC_Discussion:_Details_of_implementing_EEng's_propsal_"Unreviewed_backlog_mode" and review forward from there (maybe skimming it all first to see what early stuff was obsoleted by later parts of the discussion). Then we can compare notes. I don't think there's anything too hard in there, but that's easy for me to say since I'm assuming you're volunteering to do all the work (bless your heart). Shall we start that way? Oh yes, first question: What happened to moving everything out of Template space (which, some may recall, I predicted would never happen)? EEng 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It seems like the main things are (1) a way to keep track of "backlog" mode and (2) a way to note how many QPQs are needed for a nomination. The first we can do pretty easily by having WugBot update a page on-wiki with the number of untouched nominations. The second is slightly harder and not something I know much about. We'd need the on-wiki templates and lua modules to get the content of that page and parse it appropriately. I'm not sure how to do that. Substing the page into the template? As for moving out of Template space, I was looking today and WugBot has code to handle it, but I don't think anything's moved on that front. — Wug·a·po·des 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can handle (2) – all that's remaining is to edit Module:NewDYKnomination to read the nom counts and the "is backlog active?" page and show a message accordingly (the module is used in a substed template so no performance issue). As for moving to template space, there was agreement in the last discussion that it should be done, but some insisted that a formal RFC should be held – we're waiting for someone to start that. – SD0001 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like data on other pages can be accessed via lua which is good to know. I'll look into modifying the module this weekend and see how far I can get with lua. — Wug·a·po·des 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- So you think this new "untouched" category of nominations is feasible? Right now we've got (courtesy of your hard work) a separate page for unapproved vs. approved. Would we move to three pages, or just have the two kinds of unapproved ("unapproved, untouched", "unapproved, touched") remain on a single page? Offhand I don't see clear plusses or minuses either way (other than inventing a third page is probably more work than leaving just two pages). EEng 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I imagined keeping our current two-page system. The page WugBot would update would just be a counter, kinda like the next queue counter. So it wouldn't distinguish the modified from unmodified nominations on the page, but doing so is feasible for WugBot if that would be helpful. Adding a third page is extra complexity for no clear benefit, so I'd rather try page sections before moving to a 3-page system. — Wug·a·po·des 23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you think this new "untouched" category of nominations is feasible? Right now we've got (courtesy of your hard work) a separate page for unapproved vs. approved. Would we move to three pages, or just have the two kinds of unapproved ("unapproved, untouched", "unapproved, touched") remain on a single page? Offhand I don't see clear plusses or minuses either way (other than inventing a third page is probably more work than leaving just two pages). EEng 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like data on other pages can be accessed via lua which is good to know. I'll look into modifying the module this weekend and see how far I can get with lua. — Wug·a·po·des 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can handle (2) – all that's remaining is to edit Module:NewDYKnomination to read the nom counts and the "is backlog active?" page and show a message accordingly (the module is used in a substed template so no performance issue). As for moving to template space, there was agreement in the last discussion that it should be done, but some insisted that a formal RFC should be held – we're waiting for someone to start that. – SD0001 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It seems like the main things are (1) a way to keep track of "backlog" mode and (2) a way to note how many QPQs are needed for a nomination. The first we can do pretty easily by having WugBot update a page on-wiki with the number of untouched nominations. The second is slightly harder and not something I know much about. We'd need the on-wiki templates and lua modules to get the content of that page and parse it appropriately. I'm not sure how to do that. Substing the page into the template? As for moving out of Template space, I was looking today and WugBot has code to handle it, but I don't think anything's moved on that front. — Wug·a·po·des 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's probably best if we both go back to the top of WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#RfC_Discussion:_Details_of_implementing_EEng's_propsal_"Unreviewed_backlog_mode" and review forward from there (maybe skimming it all first to see what early stuff was obsoleted by later parts of the discussion). Then we can compare notes. I don't think there's anything too hard in there, but that's easy for me to say since I'm assuming you're volunteering to do all the work (bless your heart). Shall we start that way? Oh yes, first question: What happened to moving everything out of Template space (which, some may recall, I predicted would never happen)? EEng 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TSventon and EEng, sorry I missed these pings. What's needing done? Implementing a "some people need two QPQs" system? SD0001 had some ideas in that previous thread but to my knowledge no one's worked on anything yet. — Wug·a·po·des 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@EEng and SD0001: I've modified the module and it seems to be working. Check out the module sandbox and examples in my sandbox. I still need to modify WugBot so to update Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count, but after that everything should be good to go on this. — Wug·a·po·des 16:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wugpodes any news? I am asking now to prevent the thread being archived after a week of inactivity. TSventon (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wugapodes might be a tad distracted over the next few days. Schwede66 17:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TSventon Oh, I was waiting on feedback from others. Looks like SD0001 did some fixes on the template, and given EEng's silence I take it everything looks good. I'll get to work on WugBot and update you once everything's in order. — Wug·a·po·des 21:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I've had almost no time for WP for about the last two weeks. I have total confidence in you, Wugapoo, but if you fee=l you need me to pass my hand over something, give me a day. EEng 23:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The template sandbox version looks good to me, sorry forgot to comment here before. I just added a minor check (to avoid an error just in case someone edits the page to contain a non-number). – SD0001 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, Wug! Questions:
- What keeps Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count updated? Is it done in real time, or daily, or hourly, or what?
- Same question for the nominator's count of prior nominations -- is it updated in real time (so that if a user does nom A and then immediately nom B, the module processing nom B sees a count that includes nom A), or daily, etc?
- EEng 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count will be updated by WugBot. I intend for it to be run alongside the approval checks, so it will be done every other hour. The count of nominations is handled by SD0001, and it looks like it occurs every couple of hours. SD0001 would know the specifics. — Wug·a·po·des 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
One queue filled, all but one prep filled
Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Anyone want a DYK credit
The other day, I took an orphan stub and did a 5x expansion. However, it is currently on Afd. It needs some copyediting and better sources, interested? Asahi Firearms, go for it. --evrik (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- evrik, the first task seems to be showing that Asahi Firearms meets WP:NORG so it survives Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asahi Firearms. A knowledge of Japanese and/or firearms would be useful. TSventon (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Orange maintenance tags?
Hi all
Following a discussion at Talk:Eri Yukimura, I'd like to clarify this project's view on articles with orange maintenance tags in them, for example {{Expand section}} or {{Missing information}} etc. In other areas of the main page, such templates are prohibited in linked articles, but I've noticed that DYK doesn't explicitly rule them out, it only stipulates that Verifiability, Living Person Biographies, Copyright and NPOV policies must be satisfied. I had always thought that articles linked from the main page in general should not have any orange-level maintenance tags, other than in POTD, which is granted an exemption from the usual standards. See, for example, WP:ITNCRIT#Updated content, which stipulates no orange tags in an ITN article, and also WP:OTDRULES, which prohibits even yellow-level tags from OTD. If this is a de facto standard for DYK, maybe we should note that down, and if it isn't then I stand educated! In my experience I can't remember many examples of articles going through with tags on them, though. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Amakuru, doesn't WP:DYKSG#D7 (and perhaps WP:DYKSG#D6) cover these situations? My understanding was that {{Expand section}} and its ilk needed to be dealt with before a DYK nomination could be approved or promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: oh yes, that will do it then. I was specifically searching for the word "orange" but probably most of those are instead spelled out explicitly. — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I always thought the presence of any maintenance tags would prevent eligibility for the bold link. The admin instructions for promoting prep to queue say to "Check article for tags that would prevent eligibility." That said, for links that aren't the main bold link, I don't check. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I could see a more minor tag, like "expand section" being okay, if it was generally complete, but could be better. We don't require DYK to be GA-level. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had one or two
{{Expand Ukrainian|section=yes}}
es on List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War when it ran, and no one took issue with it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had one or two
- I could see a more minor tag, like "expand section" being okay, if it was generally complete, but could be better. We don't require DYK to be GA-level. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 27. We currently have a total of 211 nominations, of which only 70 have been approved, a gap of 141, down 17 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
More than three months old
More than one month old
- April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/National Women's Day (Pakistan)
- April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Yi Jeonggyu
April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/2021 ban of Palestinian human rights organizations- April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/John D'Orazio
- April 30: Template:Did you know nominations/William George Carlile Kent
- May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Serenidus of Saulges (three articles)
- May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Lettieri
- May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Ernest Muir (doctor)
- May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Yosef Shenberger
May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Willem Thomas de Vogel- May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Tenta, Cyprus
- May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Squatting in Myanmar
May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Dniepr BaltsMay 11: Template:Did you know nominations/SubneolithicMay 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Mixed cities- May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Giuseppe Mariani (doctor)
Other nominations
May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert "Sput" SearightMay 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Fest i hela huset- May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Enkeli-Elisa
- May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Diana Tishchenko
- May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Italy
May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Hausman Baboe- May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht
- May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Irving L. Branch
May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Where Heaven and Earth Meet- May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Canyon Kid's Corner
May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Foxconn unionsMay 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Intestine-on-a-chip- May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Clements twins
- May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Schooling and the Struggle for Public Life
- May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/The El Dorado
May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Brewer HicklenMay 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Wallace (circus owner)- May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Dominic Keegan
- May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Les Hijabeuses
- May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Lorenzo Passerini
- May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Arming teachers
May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Pacific Cyber/Metrix- May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Şevket Yorulmaz
- May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Johansson (artist)
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Diversity of approved hooks needed
As I was building preps today, I went through the whole list of approved hooks and could not complete two prep sets. This is because most of the approved hooks fall into four categories: hooks about people/events/things in America, hooks about people/events/things in the UK, biographies, and music. Also, many hooks have an image, which I try to reserve because I know how coveted the picture slot is. Preppers try to create sets that are diverse in topic and location, and avoid putting bio hooks together; without a diversity of hooks, it becomes very difficult to accomplish these goals.
For the next few days, can editors prioritize approving non-image hooks that don't fall into the four categories listed above? I also encourage nominators to find articles that don't fit those categories so reviewers have many options to review. Hopefully, this can be solved in a few days. Thanks everyone! Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Z1720 is right – we're pretty much out of non-U.S. non-bios. The prep set promoters should be making sure every set has as many U.S. and bio hooks as possible, to minimize use of hooks we're short on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed this also. Building preps has become more difficult. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I saw this and sought out
Template:Did you know nominations/Les Hijabeusesand reviewed it. We need to work with Women in Red to get more diverse nominations. --evrik (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, I saw this and sought out
- I noticed this also. Building preps has become more difficult. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Let's Go Karaoke! and Template:Did you know nominations/De Vloek. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Prep 4: Juneteenth flag (nom)
- ... that the colors and symbols on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Ben Haith, are representative of freedom and the end of slavery?
I did just promote this to prep, because it's not the end of the world if it runs this way and I don't want it to miss its spec. occ. date of June 19 – but I do want to see if a better hook is possible here. Like, isn't it a little obvious that the flag of a holiday celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation would symbolize freedom and the end of slavery? So hopefully, we can hammer out a better ALT before this goes live. Pinging @Bruxton, Evrik, and Alanscottwalker:
- ALT2: ... that the star on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Boston Ben, symbolizes Texas?
- I like this one because 1. Texas was a slave state, so you wouldn't immediately expect a Juneteenth flag to honour it, and 2. it was designed by someone whose actual nickname is "Boston Ben", and Bostonians aren't famous for liking Texans – they did fight a war
- ALT3: ... that the red on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Ben Haith, symbolizes the blood shed by African-American slaves for their country?
- this one isn't great because, iirc, the red on most flags symbolizes blood (with the exception of Spain, blood of the human variety)
I can come up with more, but I gotta keep promoting before I go to sleep. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a problem with the original hook. It is useful to mention that Juneteenth is related to the end of slavery in the US, as this isn't necessarily known outside the US. Far more interesting to read about the end of slavery than about Texas. —Kusma (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps more importantly, this is going to need moving to a different set in the highly likely case that we'll move to 1 set per day tomorrow morning. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- As observed above, no it's not obvious. Elsewhere in the world, "Juneteenth" looks like a spelling mistake, so simple clue is good to have. Bazza (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I for one had no idea what Juneteenth is. Schwede66 09:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I suppose it's relatively obscure (even inside the US), but it does feel awkward to take a hook that's ostensibly not directly about Juneteenth and make it a Juneteenth primer... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will defer to the wisdom of others. --evrik (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought we might prominently display this as the one and only Juneteenth related item. It is a double also but it is buried. Just became a Federal Holiday in the US too. I agree with Kusma about the hook. And as Schwede said, not everyone is well read about Juneteenth Bruxton (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking as a non-American who only first heard about Juneteenth within the last few years or so (and was even confused about what the term meant), it might be a good idea to use a hook that's more "explanatory". It would benefit non-American readers since not everyone who uses Wikipedia is American. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Evrik, Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, Schwede66, Kusma, Alanscottwalker, and Bazza 7: Understood. I am wondering why we did not use the free image that I created. I thought that the article would be better positioned and featured with the image. It would at least give the attention to the holiday. I notice that the clicks on this article have been going up daily. Bruxton (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Umm... are we sure that's free? I don't think explicitly featuring copyrighted design elements counts as your own work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: @GRuban: I think 100%. I created it after discussion on the nomination. We had
one month23 days to prepare for it, now it is three days away. Bruxton (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: @GRuban: I think 100%. I created it after discussion on the nomination. We had
- Umm... are we sure that's free? I don't think explicitly featuring copyrighted design elements counts as your own work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Evrik, Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, Schwede66, Kusma, Alanscottwalker, and Bazza 7: Understood. I am wondering why we did not use the free image that I created. I thought that the article would be better positioned and featured with the image. It would at least give the attention to the holiday. I notice that the clicks on this article have been going up daily. Bruxton (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking as a non-American who only first heard about Juneteenth within the last few years or so (and was even confused about what the term meant), it might be a good idea to use a hook that's more "explanatory". It would benefit non-American readers since not everyone who uses Wikipedia is American. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I thought we might prominently display this as the one and only Juneteenth related item. It is a double also but it is buried. Just became a Federal Holiday in the US too. I agree with Kusma about the hook. And as Schwede said, not everyone is well read about Juneteenth Bruxton (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will defer to the wisdom of others. --evrik (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I suppose it's relatively obscure (even inside the US), but it does feel awkward to take a hook that's ostensibly not directly about Juneteenth and make it a Juneteenth primer... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I for one had no idea what Juneteenth is. Schwede66 09:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I was pinged. While I guess I should run up the "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, I'm just a guy who's uploaded a few (thousand) images to Wikimedia Commons over a few years and had most upheld, but I'd argue that this image would be all right. While there isn't a mathematical formula that can be applied as to how similar two works can be before one violates the copyright of the other, I'd think this one is pretty clearly not a violation. Obviously the elements are not copyrighted separately, no one can copyright the phrase "June 19, 1865", no one can copyright either a five pointed white star or a 13 pointed hollow white star, the blue-white-red flag has no shortage of uses (List of flags with blue, red, and white stripes include Chile, Yugoslavia, Slavonia...). That leaves the grey/white arc, which isn't very similar to the blue/red arc, and not even strictly the same angle; surely no one can copyright all flags featuring arcs of all angles and colors. These separate bits are not arranged similarly to the Juneteenth flag, they're just evenly spaced on the grey box. There is also no attempt being made here to pretend this is the Juneteenth flag, or to use it in place of the Juneteenth flag, or otherwise step on any of the thunder of the flag, it is merely used for commentary and analysis. In short, Bruxton says he created this and is releasing it under CC-BY-SA, and I'll believe him. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GRuban: Thanks for coming over to help. I am hoping that we can promote the image with the two hooks for June 19. @Theleekycauldron: Bruxton (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GRuban: Pardon my ignorance, but how is the original flag copyrighted in the first place? To me at least it would have looked like something that would be public domain per being mostly simple shapes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: We had to spend a lot of time on that in the nomination. It is copyrighted Bruxton (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) Ehh. That's something that can be argued about. While one simple shape can't be copyrighted, a complex artwork clearly can be; and yet when you come down to it, most artwork nowadays is composed of pixels, which are individually simple colored squares, even a hundred years ago black and white newspaper photographs are just dots, many Impressionist paintings are basically dots... How many simple shapes do you need to combine in a specific pattern before it becomes original enough to be eligible for copyright? Clearly somewhere more than one, but less than 100,000, right? This case, the flag itself, has maybe half a dozen elements all in a specific arrangement, that's clearly in the "debatable" range. I'd tend to think it is enough to be "copyrightable", but I can see a reasonable person disagreeing. Thankfully I don't have to make the call on that, since Bruxton isn't claiming the original flag as other than "fair use", he's just claiming this analytical image. --GRuban (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GRuban: Pardon my ignorance, but how is the original flag copyrighted in the first place? To me at least it would have looked like something that would be public domain per being mostly simple shapes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, GRuban, I'm afraid I don't agree. This is simply a deconstructed version of the Juneteenth flag, which is copyrighted; and even if it were sufficiently transformative, that would make it fair use, not free. While I agree that the symbols themselves cannot be copyrighted, the U.S. copyright office says that this collection of symbols does qualify for copyright when together. I don't think simply de-layering an image is enough to call it original work. Would an image showing a collection of all the various parts of Mario's costume, pixel for pixel, really be my original work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: You are wrong - and that is why I called in an expert. I am disappointed in your efforts here. Your pixel for pixel comment is over the top. The images are generic. Generic fonts, generic colors on a swath, generic white star, etc. Bruxton (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Except it's clearly not a delayered image. The stars are different dimensions (you can especially see this in the 12 pointed one, which is noticeably thinner), the colors are different reds and blues, the grey and white flag and red white and blue flag can not be found anywhere in the Juneteenth flag. This not a pixel for pixel collection. --GRuban (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- In fact, costumes, like Mario's costume, are a special case, since they're often also functional clothes, there is a strong legal argument pictures of them are allowed, especially on people. Because of this, we have a whole category of Mario costumes, hundreds of them; they've been thoroughly discussed. However this isn't about a costume, so it's not a relevant point, and hopefully won't derail the argument. For Principle of charity, I'm taking your example as a non-costume artwork. --GRuban (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Image is free
I would like to lobby one more time for the image and the top slot on June 19th for Juneteenth flag. Right now the top spot is held by a list of songs and an image of someone who is not African American. In the US June 19 is a federal holiday and African-American Independence day. Thank you for your consideration. Bruxton (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that there's no way that any of the component images in the deconstructed version meet the threshold of originality. This seems like a good thing to recognize with the top slot. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The individual elements aren't copyrightable (with the possible exception of the rectangle-with-arch), but the selection of those particular elements (presented together in a single image) is arguably copyright, even if the flag's specific arrangement is not present. My personal guess is that your presentation wouldn't be infringing, but it's an interesting borderline case on which no one here is qualified to opine dispositively. (Four separate images -- star, starburst, triple stripes, thing-with-arch-in-it -- presented individually in the course of a discussion of them as elements of the overall work, would probably be OK.) EEng 05:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, the image with the disembodied individual symbols is pretty awkward. Why not just run the hook in the second slot, without the image? EEng 05:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because this is the article about the day, it should logically get the top slot, and the top slot comes with an image. The other articles simply aren't about June 19th, right? There is no more fitting article for this day. Look, we have the better arguments (even theleekycauldron's own argument about "delayering" or "pixel for pixel", which is a fine argument, and this image clearly is not either pixel for pixel or delayered), we have more people agreeing with them, if we held a full RfC I'm pretty sure we would be judged to get consensus. The problem is that we only have two days, which isn't enough for a full RfC. --GRuban (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- This whole discussion is a massive Americanism- it is a US-centric holidsy, and we shouldn't be demanding that US-centric holidays get priority over everything else... Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair (and as a non-American who often gets peeved at US-centricism), we're actually not. What we are doing is prioritising a hook which is relevant to the date that it is running, over ones that aren't. We do this all the time. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who has never seen that flag before, and has done quite a lot of work with non-free images, I wouldn't consider for a second that it exceeds WP:TOO. Have a look at some of the examples at this page and tell me they aren't even more complex than this one. I don't get why it's not free. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The flag, itself? The flag is copyrighted because the copyright office gave it a copyright, so TOO is inapplicable, the copyright is conclusive of originality. But as I state below, Bruxton's creation is not barred by copyright. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The image created by Bruxton is free. The elements are not copyrighted separately, only when they are put together in the specific way of the flag are they subject to copyright, so Bruxton's exemplar of separated elements is free (otherwise, no one could create another anything with: stars; red, white and blue; curved lines, etc.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as no one's worried about a last-minute deletion challenge, I'm not worried either. However, the specific image (at the head of this subsection) is a bit off. They flag elements aren't all "symbols" -- certainly the date June 19, 1865 isn't a "symbol"; they're better described as "elements" (maybe someone has a better term). And the words "Juneteenth flag symbols" shouldn't appear in the image itself -- instead, the image should just have the flag elements, and the hook should say (flag elements pictured). That would allow the actual elements to appear larger within the 100px constraint. EEng 16:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- seems to fit the definition of symbols Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- our own definition of symbols seems to fit this collection as well. Bruxton (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- And CNN Bruxton (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are a lot of things I could say about your line of reasoning, but for now suffice it to say that the string June 19, 1865 is not a "symbol", so for that reason alone a different choice of word is needed. Element is certainly correct, though someone one have an even better idea. EEng 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cropping per request, to see which looks better. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wait a second I just realized -- what's the three-stripe rectangle doing in the image? That's not in the Juneteenth flag. And why are the colors on the rectange-with-arch wrong? What in the world is this? It makes no sense that I can see. EEng 20:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The colors - symbolic - blue sky, white star, red blood, the horizontal arch is symbolic as well. The background color is irrelevant. Bruxton (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- They are design elements: At bottom left is the color pallette (red, white, and blue, symbolic for various things). At bottom right is the shape element (iirc, symbolic of a new horizon). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why not have the four elements appear as they actually are on the the actual flag -- white star; white staburst; phrase June 19, 1865 (in white characters); rectangle-divided-by-arch (black above arch, red below arch) -- all against a neutral, gray background? That shows every actual element in its proper color. The presence of the triicolor makes no sense. It looks like an upside-down flag of the Netherlands:
. EEng 02:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Others get it - the colors are symbolic, people will click and read what they mean. @DYK admins: can anyone promote after reading the above thread? If we keep picking we will end in a no consensus nothing burger. Bruxton (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why would you needlessly present stuff in a confusing way instead of just showing the four elements actually present (i.e. omitting the tricolor flag-like thing), in their actual colors (i.e. presenting the rectangle-with-arch in its correct colors instead of in gray and white)? There's still time for you to do that, so why not just do it? EEng 03:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sensing any confusion from the majority of editors in this thread. I did hope that the changes made would be enough, this has been nominated since May 28. I would like to thank everyone in this thread for assisting, lending opinions or trying to advance the nomination to the top spot on June 19th. I nominated this May 28th thinking that was enough time to prepare to promote this article and image. There have been two of these very long threads and I apologize for the extra work editors had to do for this nomination. I am moving on to 1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent now. It is far more interesting to me at the moment, and only an admin can make something happen at this point. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, no, you could prepare a revised image that contains only graphic elements actually present in the flag, in their correct colors. While some might think the present image is adequate, it's hard to see how anyone could disagree that a revised image, along the lines I've described, would better. EEng 05:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- "We operate by wp:consensus. I do not see consensus for your changes to the image. This is just a dyk and even though the hook is buried... it will still run. FYI, the article had
4,1005,712 views yesterday. I find that exciting! Bruxton (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC) - @EEng: "it's hard to see how anyone could disagree" - You seem to have missed Theleekycauldron's objection to the earlier images, specifically that it's a delayering of the copyrighted flag. If Bruxton did what you said, her objection would be closer to being true. With just Leeky's objection we could be said to still have a rough consensus to run, but right now, apparently specifically because of your objection, Amakuru is refusing to run the image in the top slot. Please withdraw your objection, and I hope that Amakuru will accept the first slot and image. The perfect is the enemy of the good; due to your objection that the image isn't perfect, it will not run at all. Juneteenth is tomorrow, we don't have time for this. Please. --GRuban (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I won't be around much but, yes, as Grubin suggests, the encyclopedic purpose is to suggest the design elements as separate elements, so color which goes separate from shape. This is perfectly in keeping with the plain logic of design elements (which should not be difficult to understand) and the encyclopedic article information: the colors mean seperate things from the shapes, and are thus discussed, each in turn in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- "We operate by wp:consensus. I do not see consensus for your changes to the image. This is just a dyk and even though the hook is buried... it will still run. FYI, the article had
- Well, no, you could prepare a revised image that contains only graphic elements actually present in the flag, in their correct colors. While some might think the present image is adequate, it's hard to see how anyone could disagree that a revised image, along the lines I've described, would better. EEng 05:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sensing any confusion from the majority of editors in this thread. I did hope that the changes made would be enough, this has been nominated since May 28. I would like to thank everyone in this thread for assisting, lending opinions or trying to advance the nomination to the top spot on June 19th. I nominated this May 28th thinking that was enough time to prepare to promote this article and image. There have been two of these very long threads and I apologize for the extra work editors had to do for this nomination. I am moving on to 1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent now. It is far more interesting to me at the moment, and only an admin can make something happen at this point. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why would you needlessly present stuff in a confusing way instead of just showing the four elements actually present (i.e. omitting the tricolor flag-like thing), in their actual colors (i.e. presenting the rectangle-with-arch in its correct colors instead of in gray and white)? There's still time for you to do that, so why not just do it? EEng 03:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Others get it - the colors are symbolic, people will click and read what they mean. @DYK admins: can anyone promote after reading the above thread? If we keep picking we will end in a no consensus nothing burger. Bruxton (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why not have the four elements appear as they actually are on the the actual flag -- white star; white staburst; phrase June 19, 1865 (in white characters); rectangle-divided-by-arch (black above arch, red below arch) -- all against a neutral, gray background? That shows every actual element in its proper color. The presence of the triicolor makes no sense. It looks like an upside-down flag of the Netherlands:
- I don't have any opinion either way on whether or not the image should run (I'm not a copyright expert), but does it really matter if the article is in the image slot or not? It's still going to run on Juneteenth and it will still run on DYK, so people who want to read the article and learn more about the flag (and see the actual flag even) would click the link regardless. Sometimes, non-image hooks do better than image hooks if they're really good, so not being in the image slot is not a huge loss methinks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, and in general it's up to those who prep the sets as to which things go in the image slots. Large numbers of our hooks have images submitted with them that would enhance the hook, but only a few of them run with an image. Personally I might be able to get on board with the image if the colours were separated into three circles rather than arranged to look like a made-up tricolour flag as EEng has raised. But I don't feel like the image is crucial, especially when the elements of the flag aren't alluded to in the hook... — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, had the image been the actual flag I think it would have been an easy support. But given that the flag is copyrighted, we can't use it and that's a shame. Showing the elements instead feels like a case of going around the bush. It's just not the same is it? If you can't show the actual flag, then what's the point of the disassociated elements? It would simply make readers think "why not just show the flag?" In such a case it might actually be smarter to simply not have the image at all rather than confuse them with the elements. At least they'll be tempted more to click the article to actually see the flag. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is another missed opportunity. Leeky did a hit and run on it with an objection based on limited knowledge of image copyright. You can tell Leeky was sour on this when they promoted a white pop singer and buried this double hook and image. Then EEng showed up and was clearly the only editor making demands, all of which had to me met. EEng's demands must be met it seems. similar thing happened in the Atomitat nomination. Also...EEng is the only one in this thread who said run in the second slot with no image so it is a one editor consensus. Anyway I am not African American and this is not my holiday but I thought this would be an opportunity for us to serve our readers. I will giggle when I see the hook order tomorrow: it mirrors the second class position Africans Americans have held in societies all over the globe - Happy Jubilee Day everyone. Bruxton (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think bringing up Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Atomitat is a very good argument for you. I'm not making any "demands" which "had to be met", but I've been around the block a few times so (a) I tend to know what I'm talking about, and (b) people know that. I too think it would be a shame if the first slot isn't a Juneteenth-related hook, but this particular topic isn't a good fit for that since the very thing itself -- the flag -- cannot be shown on the main page for copyright reasons, so we've been reduced to twisting ourselves into pretzels trying to squeeze in all these not-really-the-actual-design-elements-but-sort-of into a single postage-stamp-sized image instead, and it's not surprising that the results aren't very satisfactory. EEng 18:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do wonder if, as a possible compromise to still have some African American representation on the set, we could change the picture in the set so that instead of Kyla being the pictured person, it's Brian McKnight. @Amakuru: Would that be a feasible option? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind that, I'll be happy to do the swap if there's agreement for it... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Pseud 14: Would you be okay with Brian McKnight being the pictured person in the hook instead of Kyla? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I can get behind this :) Dee Dawkins-Haigler is also sitting in WP:DYKNA with a fantastic image, but either way, i think it's a great idea! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Haigler cannot run on the 19th because she's currently an election candidate and thus her running would come under the "no hooks about candidates 30 days or less before an election" rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- dag nab it- then McKnight it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, or a swap for any African-American related hook for Juneteenth. I still have an R2K: The Concert hook, which (hopefully) can be picked as an interesting lead hook on a future date
--Pseud 14 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, or a swap for any African-American related hook for Juneteenth. I still have an R2K: The Concert hook, which (hopefully) can be picked as an interesting lead hook on a future date
- dag nab it- then McKnight it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Haigler cannot run on the 19th because she's currently an election candidate and thus her running would come under the "no hooks about candidates 30 days or less before an election" rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind that, I'll be happy to do the swap if there's agreement for it... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is another missed opportunity. Leeky did a hit and run on it with an objection based on limited knowledge of image copyright. You can tell Leeky was sour on this when they promoted a white pop singer and buried this double hook and image. Then EEng showed up and was clearly the only editor making demands, all of which had to me met. EEng's demands must be met it seems. similar thing happened in the Atomitat nomination. Also...EEng is the only one in this thread who said run in the second slot with no image so it is a one editor consensus. Anyway I am not African American and this is not my holiday but I thought this would be an opportunity for us to serve our readers. I will giggle when I see the hook order tomorrow: it mirrors the second class position Africans Americans have held in societies all over the globe - Happy Jubilee Day everyone. Bruxton (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, had the image been the actual flag I think it would have been an easy support. But given that the flag is copyrighted, we can't use it and that's a shame. Showing the elements instead feels like a case of going around the bush. It's just not the same is it? If you can't show the actual flag, then what's the point of the disassociated elements? It would simply make readers think "why not just show the flag?" In such a case it might actually be smarter to simply not have the image at all rather than confuse them with the elements. At least they'll be tempted more to click the article to actually see the flag. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru, EEng, Bruxton, and Theleekycauldron: How about this version with colored circles, per request, instead of stripes? --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Not too late to save this
![The nova on the Juneteenth flag](https://web.archive.org/web/20220619220521im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Juneteenth_flag_nova.jpg/145px-Juneteenth_flag_nova.jpg)
I'll have some things to say later about some of the comments above, but first I want to suggest an approach to the image issue which I hope everyone can get behind in time for June 19:
- ... ALT4 ... that on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Ben Haith to celebrate freedom and the end of slavery in the United States, the nova (pictured) represents a new beginning for all?
This clearly presents no copyright issue, and actually says what one particular design element symbolizes, instead of presenting a jumble of unexplained elements. Can we go with this in the first slot, and one or more of the other articles discussed above in some of the lower slots? EEng 18:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd support this over the McKnight swap – what say you, @Bruxton, GRuban, Narutolovehinata5, Alanscottwalker, and Amakuru? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is classy. Bruxton (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I won't object. I also made the circles version Amakuru asked for. --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be a rough if weakish consensus for this option, I've
Done the change in Queue 1. Thanks for GRuban for the alternative circles suggestion above, but at this point I think maybe we just stick with this, it's quite nice and hooky and 100% clear of copyright concerns? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Amakuru! It looks like we now have three non-u.s. bios in a row in that set, and since we're running a shortage, I'd like one of them back – could you please put Foxconn union back in the preps? Maybe replace it with Joseph Ranger in prep 5, a black sailor in the American revolutionary war :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, fussy you are 😀 I have to eat dinner now but will do as you request a bit later on... — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron:
Done — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- ah, you're the best – i appreciate it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron:
- OK, fussy you are 😀 I have to eat dinner now but will do as you request a bit later on... — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please include the parentheses in italics, per Rule F4: replace
(''pictured'')
with''(pictured)''
. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Amakuru! It looks like we now have three non-u.s. bios in a row in that set, and since we're running a shortage, I'd like one of them back – could you please put Foxconn union back in the preps? Maybe replace it with Joseph Ranger in prep 5, a black sailor in the American revolutionary war :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be a rough if weakish consensus for this option, I've
Sausage and DYK
![]() |
How the sausage gets made | |
John Godfrey Saxe said, "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." I guess that could have been written about some of our processes as well. Bruxton (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC) |
Bug?
{{Did you know nominations/Surgery in ancient Rome}} may need attention. It is marked as promoted but is still appearing on Template talk:Did you know. It's the only one marked as promoted on that page. Suggests to me that something went awry. I also fixed a missing div. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- The move from Template:Did you know nominations/Surgery in Ancient Rome to Template:Did you know nominations/Surgery in ancient Rome complicated things. DanCherek (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed a few things. DanCherek (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that when an article moves, the DYK template should not be moved, but adjusted internally only. Pinging RoySmith so they'll know not to move the template next time. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed a few things. DanCherek (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Les Hijabeuses (nom)
Sorry, Alyo, looks like I turned this one a little acrimonious. I think someone else should step in at this point. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries! I think your objection has merit, so I'm happy to wait for a third (fourth?) opinion? Alyo (chat·edits) 22:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's no acrimony on my part. I just relisted the nomination for review. Alyo, one thing I failed to mention, can you find an image? Just my two cents. --evrik (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Two more things, @Theleekycauldron: if this was acrimonious it's because you abandoned WP:AGF and decided to label the intent of my actions; and do us all a favor, don't elevate this off the nomination page to the general discussion unless there is a real issue. This does not qualify as a real issue. --evrik (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, hmm. Part of what I wrote was an assumption of bad faith, I'll grant you – which is why I quickly deleted that part, only to be restored by edit conflict in your response. For that, I apologize again. I put this at WT:DYK because I wanted to avoid that discussion continuing fruitlessly – from WP:DR:
If discussion stalemates, editors may seek outside input to help resolve the dispute. Discussions can be advertised to noticeboards and WikiProjects to receive participation from interested uninvolved editors.
this seemed like the first stop in cooling temperatures. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
At 60 approved nominations - back to one set a day
We are now at 60 approved nominations. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I see that it says below 60, but I promoted one a few seconds ago so make that 59. SL93 (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- We need to wait until after midnight UTC. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I realize that. I'm just letting people know. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The 19:00 DYKHousekeepingBot report showed 58, so we switch after midnight. Since someone could have been approving one or more nominations about the same time the promotion happened (we've had that happen before), we wait for the bot to run for the official number. I'll be swapping the Juneteenth special occasion hook into Prep 1 from its current spot in Prep 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I should be around at the right time, if someone wants to link to or post instructions. (I've done it once, but I don't remember how). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ONUnicorn: you'll want to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I should be around at the right time, if someone wants to link to or post instructions. (I've done it once, but I don't remember how). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The 19:00 DYKHousekeepingBot report showed 58, so we switch after midnight. Since someone could have been approving one or more nominations about the same time the promotion happened (we've had that happen before), we wait for the bot to run for the official number. I'll be swapping the Juneteenth special occasion hook into Prep 1 from its current spot in Prep 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I realize that. I'm just letting people know. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- We need to wait until after midnight UTC. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Schwede66.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Too many US hooks
I count 32 bio hooks, of which 19 (59%) are US. I also count 29 non-bios, of which 26 (90%) are US. If we have to build sets with no more than 50% US hooks, drawing from a hook pool that is 74% US, I think sets should ideally be alternating between non-U.S. bios and U.S. non-bios. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Or alternating between U.S. bios and non-U.S. non-bios. TSventon (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should find other ways to solve this (run two sets of US only hooks on the fourth of July?) if nobody writes enough non-US hooks. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TSventon: we have three (barely) of the latter at last count. Not enough for even one set alternating between the two. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just reviewed a non-us bio hook. cheers Bruxton (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TSventon: we have three (barely) of the latter at last count. Not enough for even one set alternating between the two. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Inez Demonet image at prep 5
The image was not approved as it failed "Clear at 100px" criteria, but the nomination is promoted with the image. Pinging nominator Victuallers, reviewer Buidhe, and promoter Theleekycauldron. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: That's my bad – in my defense, I couldn't tell exactly what the image was at full scale, much less 100px. Just assumed it'd be clearer to someone else, although I didn't see that the image wasn't approved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This is out of control
This thread quickly reached the "more heat than light" phase. Nominators should remember to watchlist or manually check their nominations every so often. Reviewers should consider the courtesy of a ping or talk page message if they need feedback from a nominator. Everyone is a volunteer and it's pretty much impossible to force anyone to do anything around here. While it can be frustrating when that happens, we should consider what we can do to make it easier to collaborate. — Wug·a·po·des 23:06, 18 June 2022 (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.
I was having an email conversation with someone about an article I wrote some time ago when I recalled the DYK had not appeared. I found that the reviewer had asked a question, but without a ping, I was unaware of it. At that point, nothing happened, it just sat there.
That piqued my interest, so I started scrolling through the noms page. 156 of the 202 noms are older than a week, 38 of those are from May or earlier. I had to scroll well over 3/4s of the too-long page to find a single nom from the last 30 days. In many cases, it appears these are simply dangling. The reviewer or nom posts a question and the other party never replies. Reviewers are free to leave at any point, at which point the process just stops.
One minor improvement might be to send pings to the nom if no ping was posted by the last editor in the nom? Or perhaps a nightly process, even manual, to ping involved users where it appears the thread has been dropped?
I'm not sure what the solution is, but clearly, something has to be done to keep these things rolling. BM has posted a list of unreviewed noms to this page, which seems the wrong place but I can't find a better one, but that is only a small part of the issue.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another approach would be for the nominator to pay attention to what's happening with the nomination they created. EEng 15:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, like watchlisting their nomination page, Maury Markowitz. Schwede66 16:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- And so the victim-blaming begins, as it invariably does in these threads. I have been editing WP for over 20 years. I have written thousands of articles, which receive thousands of edits by thousands of editors. My watchlist is completely useless as a mechanism for tracking change.
- But of course this is avoiding the actual problems I outlined above. If the reviewer ghosts, which I see all through the nom list, then the watchlist reveals nothing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Category:DYK nominators who see themselves as "victims". Overdramatic, much? EEng 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is nothing wrong with reviewer mentioning issues without pinging; as per the DYK instructions, if there is any issue with the nomination, the reviewer ideally has to send a talk page message to the nominator via {{DYKproblem}}. Also, there is no harm in sending pings to nominator after a day or two, if they don't respond. I don't mind anyone sending pings to me even in a discussion which I have in my watchlist, but few editors don't like being pinged multiple times. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly don't propose multiple pings. But when we have this many stalled noms, we need to do something. I don't think it's unreasonable to simply post "your nom will be closed in one week" in these cases and then just close them if there's no change. But now nothing is happening, they're just mouldering away. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, like watchlisting their nomination page, Maury Markowitz. Schwede66 16:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- When you're dealing with an all-volunteer force - any one of whom may, or may not, do all the check-off steps - we tend to learn that if we don't pay attention to our own nominations, then stuff happens. — Maile (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- So then the issue is that this is so common that 3/4 of the noms are stale. What is your proposal for getting the entire Wikipedia editor community to suddenly pay attention when this problems is obviously so widespread? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like the idea of auto-pinging the nominator somehow when their nomination gets a comment. By bot, maybe? I don't see any cure for the reviewer ghosting, though. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't. The mythology is that DYK is for eager new editors SUPER-EXCITED that their fledgling contributions will be featured on the main page, oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy! Naturally such editors will keep an eye on what's happening. To the extent we have jaded old hands who suddenly remember, months later, that one of their jillions of new articles didn't appear on DYK yet, well, if they can't remember to stay with the nom then that's on them. Sooner or later everything gets attended to, and we don't need any more automated robots and pings adding to the general cacophony when there's nothing really urgent at stake. EEng 19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: other editors go through the list and ping reviewers/nominators who haven't responded. If the reviewer abandons a review, editors will mark the nom with the red icon to ask for a new reviewer. I encourage editors to join in this task and go through the nominations to ping editors who haven't responded or place the red icon. BM does these tasks frequently so they might be a good person to reach out to if you have questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like the idea of auto-pinging the nominator somehow when their nomination gets a comment. By bot, maybe? I don't see any cure for the reviewer ghosting, though. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- So then the issue is that this is so common that 3/4 of the noms are stale. What is your proposal for getting the entire Wikipedia editor community to suddenly pay attention when this problems is obviously so widespread? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have been making courtesy pings in some cases to prod nominators to respond, including in nominations I am not part of otherwise. Unfortunately, not all of them have. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- To put this in perspective, I just did a print-to-PDF of the nom page. It is 115 pages long. June 1st is on page 87. Perhaps the correct solution is to simply close everything older than one month. They aren't new at that point anyway. We can always relax the re-open policy for those examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- "New" is a relative term. And if nominations aren't followed up on, then they don't get posted and our backlog reduces. I also have a massive watchlist, but I have notes off-wiki that tell me which articles I've nominated for DYK so that I can follow up with them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue. In a quick sample of the oldest noms, most have been commented on in the last two weeks. Like a lot of stuff at WP, they're slogging their way to a conclusion, slowly but (in most cases) surely. EEng 21:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I can understand nominations stalling due to a lack of pings. However, there have been cases where nominators and/or reviewers have been unresponsive despite pings. In such cases, I'm not really sure what the solution is other than either asking for a reviewer or closing the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Then do that! There are noms that haven't had a single update in weeks. This isn't about pings, this is about dead noms. Yet everyone is talking about pings and find, like this... Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
As for the comment above about needing to watch nominations, you don't really need to watch a nomination page to follow it, especially if you don't check your watchlist always. If you know you have an open DYK nomination, you can look for it on WP:DYKN (usually by doing a CTRL+F of your username) and check it on a regular basis (at least once a day). As long as you keep regular watch on your nomination, you don't really need a ping or watchlisting to follow any updates and comments. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The onus is on the nominator to ensure success of the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Wow, WP:CIR covers this nicely. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Maury Markowitz: You an I have done some work in DYK and I appreciate you. I understand the feeling you have...when I have a pending nomination I am refreshing the screen and checking back - many times. Usually I only have two or three pending in DYK so it is not so cumbersome. Occasionally it is a months-long process. All of that checking back takes time from editing, but I am not sure of a solution. Stick around in DYK because I appreciate you, and hopefully we will all help each other. Bruxton (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The template data edit notice for nominations still says "5 credits" instead of "5 nominations"?
A while back we decided to change the rules regarding QPQs from requiring them from five credits to five nominations. However, the edit notice for all DYK nominations still says "QPQ – all nominators who have five or more DYK credits must review another article." (emphasis mine) Can this be updated to reflect the current rules? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You mean Wikipedia:Did you know/review criteria? I've amended it as you suggested but I note that it's not edit-protected. Schwede66 10:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Queues
The last filled queue hits the main page later today. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've approved a nomination with a request for a 23 June date. Could someone move it to Prep area 6 asap. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Prep 2: Initials R.B.M.E.
I requested a special occasion for Initials R.B.M.E. on June 26, the anniversary of the choreographer's death. The hook is currently in Prep 2, for June 27. Is it possible to move it to Prep 1? Pinging promoter theleekycauldron. Corachow (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
List of United States Military Academy First Captains
List of United States Military Academy First Captains has closed on the AFD for the Holland Pratt issue, and is now ready for a complete DYK review if anyone would do that. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't publish this hook about a publisher publishing a publication
In Queue 4:
- ... that after a publisher declined the manga series Let's Go Karaoke!, it sold out multiple times as a self-published manga, and was ultimately picked up for publication as a book by a different publisher?
When I read that, all I see is "publisher manga self-published manga publication publisher".
I recommend discarding everything after "self-published manga". That wouldn't eliminate redundancy, but would sure help, and I think it makes for a better hook too. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 21:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- ... that after a publisher declined the manga series Let's Go Karaoke!, it sold out multiple times after being self-published? SL93 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)