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I have added a new heading so the backlog mode discussion can be found more easily when it has been archived.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)
- There are some race conditions here which may or may not matter (much), and when I get my thoughts together I'll say something about them. In the meantime (and apologies if this is answered above) where exactly are the counts-of-prior-noms-made-by-each-editor compiled? EEng 00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The counts can be seen at User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json. There certainly are a few race conditions, and I can see two at the moment: (1) the race between WugBot and SDZeroBot and (2) the race between nominators and both bots. For (1) that can be handled by SD0001 and I coordinating a staggered run schedule so WugBot doesn't run ahead of the by-nominator-count update. For (2) it's harder given the run schedules. We'd need some way to have the update triggered by an edit to the main nomination page or just have the bots run really frequently. I don't know how to do the first one, and either could actually make the race condition between bots worse since it would become an execution time issue not a scheduling issue. There's probably some sweet spot where the coordination is tight but not perfect, and the slack could be handled by a "hey, don't bulk nominate DYKs to try and end-run the backlog mode" message. — Wug·a·po·des 20:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let' start with the most obvious problem (and correct me if there's a flaw in this narrative): (a) Editor has 4 nominations (no QPQ); (b) Editor makes a 5th nomination (also no QPQ); (c) before bot updates DYK nomination counts.json, editor makes a 6th nom. This last nom should require a QPQ, but because the counts.json still shows the editor has having only 4 prior noms, machinery mistakenly reports that no QPQ is required.Now, as I've said before we're talking about QPQs here, not someone's prison release date, so this isn't the biggest deal in the world, and at most it would happen maybe once a year. But when it does happen, consternation will follow and there will be a Talk:DYK thread opened, and a congressional investigation, and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair and wrending of garments, all for nothing. So if we can avoid it easily then we ("we" means you, of course) should do it. Tell me if this makes sense: Can the nomination processing machinery, when it reads the nominator's value from counts.json (to see if it's < 5, between 5 and 19, or >=20 -- if I'm remember the boundaries correctly) then ++ it and write it back? That would "patch" the count without waiting for the bot to run again.There's a similar race for crossing the 20-nomination boundary which triggers the double-QPQ requirement, and this would solve this too. Also, unless I'm not thinking of something, with this in place it's really not necessary for the counts.json bot to run frequently -- once a day would be fine.Does what I've said make sense, and can you swing the writing back of the incremented count? EEng 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd rather we not wrend garments, I just bought mine. Unfortunately what you describe is not possible. The DYK nomination template uses a Lua module, but while these modules can read arbitrary pages, they cannot write to arbitrary pages. The only way to do what you described would be using an automated system like a user script or bot. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, shit. EEng 22:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above and in earlier discussions, updating of counts.json takes place in real-time. It doesn't run on any schedule. To take the latest one, Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Nicoll was created at 2022-06-24T16:39:29Z and SDZeroBot updated the count at 2022-06-24T16:39:33Z. If the difference of 4 seconds also seems too much, I'm sure we can find a way to make it faster. – SD0001 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to have made you repeat yourself; last year I was told I needed a brain transplant, and the only brain available was from a goldfish. 4 seconds is plenty prompt; just out of curiosity, how exactly does the bot find out it needs to run? EEng 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It uses the Wikimedia EventStreams API. Basically it asks the wikimedia server: "notify me whenever a page with title beginning Template:Did_you_know_nominations/ is created". The bot runs 24x7 looking out for such notifications to arrive. When they come, it finds out who created the page, and increments that user's count.
It's similar to the technology that enables your phone to notify you of new emails – immediately when the email arrives. – SD0001 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It uses the Wikimedia EventStreams API. Basically it asks the wikimedia server: "notify me whenever a page with title beginning Template:Did_you_know_nominations/ is created". The bot runs 24x7 looking out for such notifications to arrive. When they come, it finds out who created the page, and increments that user's count.
- Sorry to have made you repeat yourself; last year I was told I needed a brain transplant, and the only brain available was from a goldfish. 4 seconds is plenty prompt; just out of curiosity, how exactly does the bot find out it needs to run? EEng 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above and in earlier discussions, updating of counts.json takes place in real-time. It doesn't run on any schedule. To take the latest one, Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Nicoll was created at 2022-06-24T16:39:29Z and SDZeroBot updated the count at 2022-06-24T16:39:33Z. If the difference of 4 seconds also seems too much, I'm sure we can find a way to make it faster. – SD0001 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, shit. EEng 22:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd rather we not wrend garments, I just bought mine. Unfortunately what you describe is not possible. The DYK nomination template uses a Lua module, but while these modules can read arbitrary pages, they cannot write to arbitrary pages. The only way to do what you described would be using an automated system like a user script or bot. — Wug·a·po·des 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let' start with the most obvious problem (and correct me if there's a flaw in this narrative): (a) Editor has 4 nominations (no QPQ); (b) Editor makes a 5th nomination (also no QPQ); (c) before bot updates DYK nomination counts.json, editor makes a 6th nom. This last nom should require a QPQ, but because the counts.json still shows the editor has having only 4 prior noms, machinery mistakenly reports that no QPQ is required.Now, as I've said before we're talking about QPQs here, not someone's prison release date, so this isn't the biggest deal in the world, and at most it would happen maybe once a year. But when it does happen, consternation will follow and there will be a Talk:DYK thread opened, and a congressional investigation, and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair and wrending of garments, all for nothing. So if we can avoid it easily then we ("we" means you, of course) should do it. Tell me if this makes sense: Can the nomination processing machinery, when it reads the nominator's value from counts.json (to see if it's < 5, between 5 and 19, or >=20 -- if I'm remember the boundaries correctly) then ++ it and write it back? That would "patch" the count without waiting for the bot to run again.There's a similar race for crossing the 20-nomination boundary which triggers the double-QPQ requirement, and this would solve this too. Also, unless I'm not thinking of something, with this in place it's really not necessary for the counts.json bot to run frequently -- once a day would be fine.Does what I've said make sense, and can you swing the writing back of the incremented count? EEng 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- The counts can be seen at User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json. There certainly are a few race conditions, and I can see two at the moment: (1) the race between WugBot and SDZeroBot and (2) the race between nominators and both bots. For (1) that can be handled by SD0001 and I coordinating a staggered run schedule so WugBot doesn't run ahead of the by-nominator-count update. For (2) it's harder given the run schedules. We'd need some way to have the update triggered by an edit to the main nomination page or just have the bots run really frequently. I don't know how to do the first one, and either could actually make the race condition between bots worse since it would become an execution time issue not a scheduling issue. There's probably some sweet spot where the coordination is tight but not perfect, and the slack could be handled by a "hey, don't bulk nominate DYKs to try and end-run the backlog mode" message. — Wug·a·po·des 20:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are some race conditions here which may or may not matter (much), and when I get my thoughts together I'll say something about them. In the meantime (and apologies if this is answered above) where exactly are the counts-of-prior-noms-made-by-each-editor compiled? EEng 00:40, 24 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)
I dislike being the guy who just pokes holes while others do all the work,[1] but this raises some new questions.
- (a) So, to be clear, the bot operates only by ++ing a user's counts on file -- it never rebuilds the counts from scratch (by looking at ... I don't know, I guess by looking at every page, going back forever, of the form Template:Did you know nominations/)?
- (b) But the bot hasn't been around forever, so where did the initial counts come from?
- (c) You look at who created the nom template page, not the name of the nominator given in the template itself? (Wugapodes -- maybe those two things can't be different? The nominated by (or self-nominated) stuff in the nom template -- does your machinery enforce that the named nominator is the same as the editor creating the template?)
EEng 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I was just oversimplifying. The EventStream API isn't perfect – it can miss a few notifications and deliver a few ones twice. To account for those glitches, we DO rebuild the counts from scratch -- every 24 hours. The process for that is simpler – it queries the database (quarry:query/59696). This is also where the initial counts came from.
As to (c), yes we only look at who created the template page. So multi-user nominations are credited to solely to one person. If we wanted to overcome this limitation, it's easy enough in the real-time update component. But the build-from-scratch component of the bot might would become a BIG task involving reading in the contents of 58318 pages, as opposed to a simple 1.5 minute database query. Is it worth it? – SD0001 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC) - W/r/t (c) they can be different. Thanks SD0001 for the clarification; I also missed the part where you explained the event stream API. It's the first I'm hearing about it so I look forward to reading up on it. @EEng: So with this information, it seems like the race conditions are minimized. There is still the issue of a bi-hourly WugBot run which would be what triggers "backlog mode". That is, we'll have up-to-the-minute counts of nominations but the backlog mode would only change once every two hours. I think that might actually be reasonable--we wouldn't want it yo-yo-ing around every few minutes as things get added and removed. What do you think? — Wug·a·po·des 02:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Who am I fooling? It's nice, actually.
Prep-Queue-Main Page hook issues
New hooks suggested at Main Page errors
WP:DYK#The DYK process says WP:ERRORS is: "to report concerns about DYK items currently on the main page – If necessary an admin may edit or replace a hook on main page".
Today (I think not the first time), a hook in tomorow's set was debated from 08:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC), with substitute hooks offered, until a new hook was agreed upon at 22:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC). Concerns have come up that WP:ERRORS is sometimes used to suggest/workshop new hooks. The page is watch-listed by interested admins, but we don't tell others they need to watch it. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- My issues with making non-minor changes to hooks at the errors page are when the nominators become angry at the change and when the nominator isn't even pinged. I rarely see error posters ping or post on the talk page of those who were involved with the nomination. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- It occurs to me, that the DYK nom template serves as a record of the review and pertinent details of the selected hook. As such, DYKUpdateBot posts the original approved hook on the article talk page as soon as the set is promoted to the main page. The changed hook, I think, is not posted on any talk page. WP:ERRORS gets cleared off once a rotation happens, erasing any record of what happened, because nobody is going to automatically think of scrolling through the main page history to find out what happened. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The final version of the hook, as amended at WP:ERRORS, is what is archived. (If a hook is pulled from the main page, it is not archived.) So there should always be a record of the final version of the hook as it looked when its run came to an end. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- the archived version of the hook is what makes it to the stats page, as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- The final version of the hook, as amended at WP:ERRORS, is what is archived. (If a hook is pulled from the main page, it is not archived.) So there should always be a record of the final version of the hook as it looked when its run came to an end. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, only the first few posts of that discussion were about changes to the hook because it was badly written. After that, it turned out that the hook in the Queue was actually rejected at the DYK nom, and was factually wrong to boot. A new hook was proposed (the one that was accepted at the DYK nom) and put in the Queue, but that one was factually wrong as well (as was clear from the ERRORS discussion before that change was made). Finally, at 22.25, unlike what Maile claims, no "new hook was agreed upon", but the hook was pulled and the DYK nom reopened, as we were just hours away from once again putting incorrect info on the main page. But sure, let's focus on who should have been pinged as the main issue to take away from this (and of course, in a discussion about who should have been pinged, let's definitely not contact the people who were actually in that misrepresented discussion). Perhaps we should instead discuss the many DYK regulars and admins who have let factual errors go through to the queues or even the main page recently, or who fail to see the error in a hook even when it is spelled out repeatedly at wp:errors. Perhaps starting with Maile themselves, who tries to scare people away for "interfering" with DYK when they point out and correct serious issues. DYK is failing, and this is what you care about? Fram (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fram Maybe I should have been clearer, but I wasn't referring to pinging in relation to hooks that are factually wrong. This is a recent example, but the pinging is secondary to the hook being changed without an error. In this case, the change is minor although I am against brainstorming a new hook when it's not needed. I really don't feel like searching the errors archive for things that would show what I mean in a better way. It's bigger than the one hook that you're focused on. SL93 (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- (ec)The discussion which this section is about, was started by me, at first to get a hook changed without yet realising that it was just plain wrong (and already rejected to boot), but because it was badly written. Apparently it is problematic to not ping a bunch of editors when at WP:ERRORS, but I see no one here having an issue with the actual errors (in this case, or in the many cases in the weeks before this). An attempt to deal with the many errors and issues of DYK by adding yet more bureaucracy is bizarre, and an attempt to do so without even bothering to do the thing which is supposedly such an issue when done to a DYK hook (i.e. not contacting the people involved) reeks of, well, there are a number of possibilities but they would all be construed as personal attacks and used to bury the actual issues, so I'll just leave it to your imagination. Fram (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion also states "Concerns have come up that WP:ERRORS is sometimes used to suggest/workshop new hooks." which it has been brought up before this incident. I'm not sure what I can do other than to say that I should have been clearer with what I meant. I'm the only one here who mentioned pinging and I clearly already said that I'm not referring to when there are actual errors. I have no idea why you're focused on something that I wasn't referring to. SL93 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram:, I'll always process an error or pull a hook if you or anyone else points out an obvious error with it. I also do my best to weed out issues with the hooks in my own sets, when I put my name against them when promoting from prep to queue, although as with anyone else I'll occasionally miss something which you later spot. You're entitled to your opinion on the state of DYK, but it's not really going to help anyone and we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs at the end of the day. So start an RFC to abolish DYK altogether if you like, or come up with a new process with better error-checking built in, but please don't personalise the issues here. Even if your complaints are true, it's not going to help anyone and you might end up with a topic ban or worse down the line - which would be a shame because your error-finding is useful and on-point.
- As for the original question asked, I think that ERRORS is not the place for brainstorming new hooks, and that if a promoted hook is unsalvageable, the solution is simply to remove it and reopen (or indeed remove it and consign it to the trash, if the hook was live and has already had most of its run on the main page). Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am amazed at Fram's suggestion that no one here cares about DYK errors, especially when I recently posted on their talk page about DYK issues. I have no idea why I apologized for my behavior at ERRRORS on Fram's talk page anymore. SL93 (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Amakuru cares, that I do know. Maile cares more about the image of DYK than about errors in my experience, and many others here either don't care or don't have the competence to deal with it adequately. Just look at the discussion this section is about, and how despite pointing out the basic error twice, it still got included in the "improved" hook that was used to replace the earlier, rejected hook. To see then that Maile starts a section, not about how to prevent or reduce this kind of thing happening, but about some non-issue which no one should care about as long as errors get to the queues and the main page with alarming frequency, just reinforces my general image of DYK and many of its main contibutors. Fram (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your thoughts about DYK errors are valid, but I remember you saying that the entire DYK project has to get their heads out of their asses which is much different than "many". I highly doubt that I could say such a thing and have no repercussions even when stating it about one person. SL93 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- If your reason for stating it is sound, it should not get repercussions. And this very section is a perfect example of why I said it. DYK regulars (not all of them, but enough of them to dominate the project it seems) more concerned about bureaucracy and having everything in the right place and no one's privileges getting hurt by getting their hook changed (on a bloody wiki, in case you all forgot), than about getting better in avoiding putting errors on the Main Page again, and again, and again. Fram (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I highly disagree. The rules in relation to assuming good faith and no personal attacks always apply. I am not more concerned about pinging than errors. SL93 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just looking at the hook that got Maile so concerned about the wrong things, I see that it was accepted by User:Sammi Brie (more than 500 DYKs, so a DYK veteran), promoted by User:Theleekycauldron (DYK mainstay, nearly an admin because of his DYK work), moved from Prep to Queue by (IIRC) User:Cwmhiraeth (admin, one of the main DYK contributors); at the errors page, after the error had been explained twice, Theleekycauldron again proposed another hook with the same error, and User:Schwede66, anoter one of the main DYK admins, posted the wrong hook to the queue. None of the other DYK admins who had commented (Amakuru, User:Valereee) noticed this, so I again needed to point this out, after which Amakuru removed the hook (thanks!), nearly 13 hours after this was pointed out and less than 2 hours before it would have hit the main page. At which point you came along, and your main concern was ... "I appreciate you mentioning that point about new hooks. Errors being used for that frustrates me." So please tell me, SL93, why I should conclude that it is not true that you are more concerned about errors (which you showed no concern about there, nor here when the same discussion was brought up) than about hook improvements or pinging? Cause it sure looks that way. And please tell me as well why I should not be rather fed up with the DYK project when so many of their main admins and contributors have so little care for all of this? Fram (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are assuming things. I never once said that I am more concerned about hook changes than actual errors. I only mentioned it in that case because the error was resolved at that point. I never said that you shouldn't be fed up with the DYK project. You are calling me a liar at this point. SL93 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just point out what you did do, and what you didn't do. That you twice thought it necessary to raise your concern about minor hook changes and pinging contributors for such a thing, and not once that perhaps the more pressing issue was that errors got so far so often, and that it was so bloody hard to get it removed. "The error was removed at that point", yes, and the initials demands to change the hook were also resolved at that time because the hook was no longer in the queues (and not the same any longer anyway). And the only thing you (and Maile) brought home from this was "oh no, people suggest better hooks at Errors without pinging everyone, deary me". If this is not your priority and you are more concerned about the errors, then you are very good at hiding this. Fram (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see that you reverted my removal of the section on your talk page because of your response. It seems that rule is more important to you than being an asshole. SL93 (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just looking at the hook that got Maile so concerned about the wrong things, I see that it was accepted by User:Sammi Brie (more than 500 DYKs, so a DYK veteran), promoted by User:Theleekycauldron (DYK mainstay, nearly an admin because of his DYK work), moved from Prep to Queue by (IIRC) User:Cwmhiraeth (admin, one of the main DYK contributors); at the errors page, after the error had been explained twice, Theleekycauldron again proposed another hook with the same error, and User:Schwede66, anoter one of the main DYK admins, posted the wrong hook to the queue. None of the other DYK admins who had commented (Amakuru, User:Valereee) noticed this, so I again needed to point this out, after which Amakuru removed the hook (thanks!), nearly 13 hours after this was pointed out and less than 2 hours before it would have hit the main page. At which point you came along, and your main concern was ... "I appreciate you mentioning that point about new hooks. Errors being used for that frustrates me." So please tell me, SL93, why I should conclude that it is not true that you are more concerned about errors (which you showed no concern about there, nor here when the same discussion was brought up) than about hook improvements or pinging? Cause it sure looks that way. And please tell me as well why I should not be rather fed up with the DYK project when so many of their main admins and contributors have so little care for all of this? Fram (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I highly disagree. The rules in relation to assuming good faith and no personal attacks always apply. I am not more concerned about pinging than errors. SL93 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- If your reason for stating it is sound, it should not get repercussions. And this very section is a perfect example of why I said it. DYK regulars (not all of them, but enough of them to dominate the project it seems) more concerned about bureaucracy and having everything in the right place and no one's privileges getting hurt by getting their hook changed (on a bloody wiki, in case you all forgot), than about getting better in avoiding putting errors on the Main Page again, and again, and again. Fram (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your thoughts about DYK errors are valid, but I remember you saying that the entire DYK project has to get their heads out of their asses which is much different than "many". I highly doubt that I could say such a thing and have no repercussions even when stating it about one person. SL93 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Amakuru cares, that I do know. Maile cares more about the image of DYK than about errors in my experience, and many others here either don't care or don't have the competence to deal with it adequately. Just look at the discussion this section is about, and how despite pointing out the basic error twice, it still got included in the "improved" hook that was used to replace the earlier, rejected hook. To see then that Maile starts a section, not about how to prevent or reduce this kind of thing happening, but about some non-issue which no one should care about as long as errors get to the queues and the main page with alarming frequency, just reinforces my general image of DYK and many of its main contibutors. Fram (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- This (what Amakuru said) is probably the right approach. Do easy fixes quickly at WP:ERRORS and reopen the nom in other cases. Reopening the nom may also be better than wordsmithing/finding new hooks on this page; that kind of things should be done before promotion if at all possible. —Kusma (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am amazed at Fram's suggestion that no one here cares about DYK errors, especially when I recently posted on their talk page about DYK issues. I have no idea why I apologized for my behavior at ERRRORS on Fram's talk page anymore. SL93 (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion also states "Concerns have come up that WP:ERRORS is sometimes used to suggest/workshop new hooks." which it has been brought up before this incident. I'm not sure what I can do other than to say that I should have been clearer with what I meant. I'm the only one here who mentioned pinging and I clearly already said that I'm not referring to when there are actual errors. I have no idea why you're focused on something that I wasn't referring to. SL93 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- (ec)The discussion which this section is about, was started by me, at first to get a hook changed without yet realising that it was just plain wrong (and already rejected to boot), but because it was badly written. Apparently it is problematic to not ping a bunch of editors when at WP:ERRORS, but I see no one here having an issue with the actual errors (in this case, or in the many cases in the weeks before this). An attempt to deal with the many errors and issues of DYK by adding yet more bureaucracy is bizarre, and an attempt to do so without even bothering to do the thing which is supposedly such an issue when done to a DYK hook (i.e. not contacting the people involved) reeks of, well, there are a number of possibilities but they would all be construed as personal attacks and used to bury the actual issues, so I'll just leave it to your imagination. Fram (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Main Page guidelines
- DYK has lots of rules and lots of due process, involving many editors. WP:ERRORS has little of either; it just seems to be an ephemeral free-for-all. So, WP:ERRORS should have a high bar so that only significant errors are addressed in its shoot-from-the-hip, wild-west way. Inconsequential copy-edits such as the example given by SL93 should be given short shrift. The trouble is that, because WP:ERRORS doesn't have any formal processes or rules, there's no way to make changes to them, as we can here. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Talk:Main Page#Main Page error reports — Maile (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just get rid of DYK ERRORS altogether and codify what is already happening. Primergrey (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Notifying nominators of changes in prep or queue
- I know I'm getting slightly off-topic here but since I was pointed to this discussion and it's mentioned, I'm going to ask it. What is the general practice about alerting nominators when a hook is changed after approval? After I discovered that one of my hooks had been changed after approval in a way that made it factually inaccurate I basically decided to stop participating in DYK (with one exception for someone who I found inspiring and who I wanted to bring attention to). Would that experience still be common today? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The general practice still seems to be to treat nominators with contempt and freely amend their hooks without any by-your-leave. I too don't participate much in DYK now for this reason. But I helped out a new editor recently by nominating her article, following a WiR event. I reviewed a nomination as a QPQ and approved a hook. But the hook was changed without any consultation by a set builder and contrary to policy WP:CENSOR. I noticed this when it appeared and advised the nominator of the culprit. They agreed that "It's an unfortunate consequence of DYK that your hook will likely be tampered with." So it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- As Fram notes above, this is a Wiki and nobody actually WP:OWNs the text in the hooks, it's subject to modification and amendment, especially when the changes are to correct errors. Sometimes editors may choose to notify noms and reviewers of these changes, but it isn't obligatory and at the end of the day it's up to interested parties to put the entries on their watchlists if they want to keep track of them. — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The general practice still seems to be to treat nominators with contempt and freely amend their hooks without any by-your-leave. I too don't participate much in DYK now for this reason. But I helped out a new editor recently by nominating her article, following a WiR event. I reviewed a nomination as a QPQ and approved a hook. But the hook was changed without any consultation by a set builder and contrary to policy WP:CENSOR. I noticed this when it appeared and advised the nominator of the culprit. They agreed that "It's an unfortunate consequence of DYK that your hook will likely be tampered with." So it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I still think pinging the nominator should be common courtesy if not required, although the onus remains with the nominator when it comes to seeing the nomination and/or hook through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru so changes when hooks get moved to prep queues are noted now on nomination pages? Because nomination pages are what we would expect someone to be watching. As my anecdote shares, the error was introduced with the change and it was not noted on the nomination page (which I had been watching). So if that's current procedure I would agree it's sufficient notification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is often (but not always) the case that if a significant change is going to be done to a hook (or the hook is replaced entirely) the nominator is informed. It doesn't happen always, but it's usually considered good practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty much my point. For major changes I would generally notify, (and in fact, per the OP question here I generally would remove the hook for further discussion where major changes were necessary, rather than just boldly changing the wording myself). But there's no absolute obligation for this, and nobody should get too upset if that notification doesn't happen for some reason. Sometimes we're busy and the change needs to be made quickly without leaving time for a notification. — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's be clear. I am upset enough 2 years after I discovered that an error had been introduced into a DYK I worked on (which was several months after it went on the mainpage) to bring it up, not because a courtesy wasn't extended to me. Accordingly, "We're busy so sometimes notification doesn't happen even if it's part of the system" seems completely reasonable to me. "We are busy so the system prioritizes speed over collaboration and/or accuracy" does not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty much my point. For major changes I would generally notify, (and in fact, per the OP question here I generally would remove the hook for further discussion where major changes were necessary, rather than just boldly changing the wording myself). But there's no absolute obligation for this, and nobody should get too upset if that notification doesn't happen for some reason. Sometimes we're busy and the change needs to be made quickly without leaving time for a notification. — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is often (but not always) the case that if a significant change is going to be done to a hook (or the hook is replaced entirely) the nominator is informed. It doesn't happen always, but it's usually considered good practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, best practices is to ping at minimum the nom to any discussion of a hook, whether at WT:DYK or at ERRORS, and even for a change you don't feel needs discussion, to ping the nom in the edit summary. valereee (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've had one of my nominations changed in prep, turning a man into a woman. (Fixed 20 minutes after it hit the Main Page). @Theleekycauldron had suggested a bot that would mention any such changes on the nom talk page (so nominators would only need to watch one page, not sixteen) but she was discouraged from implementing that so it did not happen. Personally, I think we should have a lot more edits to hooks before they get approved (this being a wiki and all), and a lot less afterwards (be careful with editing things that have gone through a supposedly strict fact checking process) but in the context of what we have, some notification like the one implicit in leeky's idea would be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Old-timers will remember this choice example of schoolmarmish pearl-clutching: WT:Did_you_know/Archive_111#When_the_humor-impaired_become_admins. EEng 16:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- My personal practice, is that unless it's a minor change like punctuation or spelling, the nominator should at least be pinged. I've noticed the below issues:
- A hook is approved on the nomination template, but the promoter edits the hook when putting it in Prep
- Hooks are changed while in prep, without discussion
- Hooks are changed in queue
- Since I normally just work the queues, if I've made changes it would be there, either while promoting it from prep to queue, or if a genuine error is noticed. Generally speaking, I don't remember changing many hooks and otherwise only minor changes if I did. But what I have noticed increasingly are wordsmithing changes either in the promotion of an approved hook to prep, or what I'm assuming the editor believes is a tidying up of a prep entry. Maybe we should have a discussion about this. How much is too much — Maile (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Maile66, any change at any point after a completed review should require a ping to the nom. I don't care if it's just "tidying up". I've seen "tidying up" that changed content to make it incorrect. We've had this discussion multiple times. valereee (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. And there it is the first item at the top of the Queue page:
- "When modifying a hook in a Prep or Queue (other than minor formatting fixes) please notify the nominator by including a link of the form
[[User:JoeEditor]]
in your edit summary. (Ping templates like{{U|JoeEditor}}
don't work in edit summaries.)"
- "When modifying a hook in a Prep or Queue (other than minor formatting fixes) please notify the nominator by including a link of the form
- Ah, yes. And there it is the first item at the top of the Queue page:
- Ugh, right, I'm sorry I dropped the ball on this. A technical error I couldn't resolve caused me to shove the project aside for other, easier programming projects. I'm going to take another swing at it, hopefully this week. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Someone's hook is on the main page... at the cost of DYK consensus
I would like to have a warm feeling that "my" hook is on the main page.... but sadly its spoilt. My nomination was rightly discussed and finessed and a consensus was reached. Then someone removed it out of the prep queues with some arrogance that they felt that is could be phrased better. What is the point of gaining a consensus? My comment, when consulted, on the new hook was "Thanks for the thought @SL93: but I don't feel involved in this meta discussion/approval process. When you/those guys start redoing, a redone, changed and historically approved hook then I'm surprised anyone is interested in the changes. I don't check them because I, like the original people involved, have moved on to improving the encyclopedia. I try and avoid looking at whats happening (it isn't inspiring to nominators IMO). Hooks should be pulled out of the queue because they are wrong and not because someone thinks they could phrase it better and no one is bothered enough to revert their fiddling. Is the phrasing better? No one checks and by that point, few care." I just feel a bit uninspired/sad that we have allowed ourselves to get to this point. When we close a discussion at DYK then it should have some significance... otherwise we insult everyone who took the trouble to get involved at the correct time and agreed that it was good to go (nb: not perfect). This isnt an attack on the fiddlers but a request that we establish a consensus here that DYK should show some respect those who create a consensus. Victuallers (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The hook was pulled because the wording was confusing, and several editors had mentioned this. It talked about the niece and Carrao herself, with repeated use of "her own", leaving it unclear whether the "ugly hair" label belonged to the niece or Carrao. You were welcome to comment on the revised proposals, but you chose not to. The new wording looks a lot clearer and hooky to my eyes, so I'm not entirely sure what you don't like about it. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one broke any rules, or ignored any consensus. Amakuru spotted something legitimately misleading about the hook (if I were reviewing it, I would have made the exact same call), pulled it, and let editors improve it by consensus until everyone was on board. You could have totally participated in the discussion to fix up the hook and make it more understandable for everyone, but you didn't. There's a reason that a prep set builder and a queue promoter come after the reviewer: the more people give the hook a look-over, from more diverse backgrounds, the more DYK's language represents something appropriately understandable a broad audience. Not every pairing of two people is omniscient, and they won't always be able to grasp something subjective like how hooks might read to someone who thinks differently. This is a wiki, and anyone can weigh in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I moved this hook set into the queue and I also found the original hook confusing. It was only when I consulted the source that I understood it. I frequently make minor changes to hooks when I promote them to the queue but bring more serious problems to this page (as below). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Victuallers, congratulations on your successful nomination and the page being featured on the main page. --evrik (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are many cooks contributing to the DYK broth keeping bad apples from getting through, and an editor with his fingers in so many pies that he doesn't have time to keep watch on his nom will soon find that he can't have his cake and eat it too and shouldn't cry over spilled milk. I've tried to explain that here [1] EEng 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC) It should be taken with a grain of salt, of course.
- I feel like this has been discussed multiple times with the suggestion/conclusion that anyone making changes at any point any time after review should ping the nom in either the edit summary (for "minor" changes) or the talk/ERRORS post (for other than "minor"). Why isn't this protocol? Why are we still making changes in prep, queue, and at ERRORS without at minimum pinging the nom? valereee (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @valereee: the hook wasn't modified in prep; Amakuru pulled it, suggesting changes because the hook was misleading. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- True, but I feel like an entire RFC could even be made about Valereee's main point. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, "anyone with extra time and energy on their hands" is practically a direct ping to me (i created Wikipedia talk:Did you know/RfCs), so I'll get into making that list. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- hahahahaha valereee (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK --evrik (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Who is that in reference to? SL93 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SL93, sorry, that's in reference to "anyone with extra time and energy on their hands" is practically a direct ping to me. Claudia and I have a very friendly relationship and have laughed together multiple times about how she takes on every job! At top speed! Even when it means she's up until 4am! :D I'm sure she knows exactly what I meant, but my apologies that to anyone else it looked like I was making some sort of snarky comment. It was purely just me appreciating her joke about herself. valereee (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Who is that in reference to? SL93 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK --evrik (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- hahahahaha valereee (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, "anyone with extra time and energy on their hands" is practically a direct ping to me (i created Wikipedia talk:Did you know/RfCs), so I'll get into making that list. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- True, but I feel like an entire RFC could even be made about Valereee's main point. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- @valereee: the hook wasn't modified in prep; Amakuru pulled it, suggesting changes because the hook was misleading. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
WugBot should remove unapproved nominations from the approved page
I think WugBot should move a nomination from the approved page back to WP:DYKN when the last icon on the nom page is no longer an approval tick. At that point, the nom isn't approved anymore, so it doesn't belong on the approved page, and moving it will help to prevent accidental premature promotions of hooks which aren't ready yet. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like this idea a lot, actually – it also helps clear clutter for preppers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Wugapodes so they're aware of this discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good, because Wugapodes is looking for more things to do. EEng 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- If I remember the code correctly, WugBot should already have this capability as a configuration setting. I'd just need to switch a parameter. I'm pretty busy until Monday, but assuming there's no issues I should be able to have this implemented in the next few days. — Wug·a·po·des 17:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good, because Wugapodes is looking for more things to do. EEng 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Wugapodes so they're aware of this discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a bad idea and would help. But it makes me wonder whether we should perhaps have clearer indications for the present state of a nomination than whatever is the last symbol added: something like a
|status=unreviewed
or|status=approved
perhaps? Currently when we pull a nom we need to remember to add it to the unapproved list and to add a symbol so it isn't automatically moved to the approved list again. More sophisticated status fields could indicate whether there is approval for articles and/or hooks and/or images and/or special date requests. In an ideal world, every hook should undergo copyediting and then fact checking after the article has been approved, but all of these things would need to be clearly shown on the page for easy processing. —Kusma (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)- I like the tick system more than a single status parameter – it allows to keep track, at a glance, of how the discussion has progressed over time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- For many older noms with lengthy discussion, it isn't easy to understand what the problem is in the current system either (where the main "status" indicator is where the page is currently transcluded). My idea above obviously isn't a finished proposal, and made worse by the fact that I am mixing it with my other unready idea of separating article approval, hookiness approval and fact checking more clearly. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I like the tick system more than a single status parameter – it allows to keep track, at a glance, of how the discussion has progressed over time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
More prep builders are needed in general
More prep builders are needed in general, and not just for short periods of time. theleekycauldron and I have filled most of what are currently in the preps. What typically happens is that someone asks for more prep builders when the current ones, or current one, gets tired out. That is when we have more people help out for a few days at most and then the process quickly repeats itself. Editors are so willing to complete the other DYK things such as creating, expanding, nominating, and reviewing although almost no one seems to want to help out on the penultimate step of getting hooks to the main page. It's frustrating. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure you are right. I have enough difficulty with the templates for nominating, so I don't think I could do it, but there are plenty of people outside DYK regulars who love that sort of thing (& don't like doing articles). Here is probably the wrong place to recruit. I know there have been suggestions before, but some sort of offer of training/monitoring/supervision for new people who aren't used to DYK & its little ways would probably help get new blood. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't feel inclined to help with preps for a while, if ever again. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SL93: I just saw this now. Take a break but please come back because DYK needs your expertise. I had a go at prep sets a few times, and I realize there is a learning curve - written and unwritten rules, and past practices and other minutia. When a valuable editor steps back we see the ripple effect on the project. For example, recently one of our most prolific NPP editors caught a block they announced a retirement from NPP, and a large backlog of unreviewed articles began piling up. Thanks for all you do in this area, I will certainly miss your experience while you are on break. One person really does make a difference. Bruxton (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SL93: I am sorry that you feel this way. I agree that more prep builders are needed, and I wish I had more time to help lately. I have noticed that sometimes when I have time to prep build, most of the preps are full because prep builders (and usually a small group of them) have been doing a great job promoting hooks; it has been many months since I have been concerned that DYK does not have enough filled preps. I suggest that, if any prep builder feels burned out, they pull back for a while and give space for new/other prep builders to step up and learn the process. If the preps are mostly empty, editors will post a notice on WT:DYK. I hope that you continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia, no matter how you are contributing. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Count of verified hooks at zero
The count of verified hooks went down to zero here and is now at one. Shubinator, do you know what is happening? TSventon (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Wugapodes:. Flibirigit (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems clear that, for whatever reason, DYKHousekeepingBot isn't able to gather data from the Approved page, and is only including the Nominations page in its totals. Verified hooks are only counted when on the Nominations page, and vanish from the count when moved by WugBot to Approved, which just happened. Shubinator typically checks in overnight (and not every night), so I don't expect to see the counts fixed today. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed with Special:Diff/1096078595 :) Shubinator (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems clear that, for whatever reason, DYKHousekeepingBot isn't able to gather data from the Approved page, and is only including the Nominations page in its totals. Verified hooks are only counted when on the Nominations page, and vanish from the count when moved by WugBot to Approved, which just happened. Shubinator typically checks in overnight (and not every night), so I don't expect to see the counts fixed today. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list has been archived, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 17. The last time DYKHousekeepingBot gave accurate figures, we had a total of 223 nominations, of which only 87 were approved, a gap of 136 nominations, up 8 over the previous eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
More than two months old
April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Frequency modulation encodingApril 25: Template:Did you know nominations/John D'Orazio
More than one month old
May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Serenidus of Saulges (three articles)May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark LettieriMay 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Ernest Muir (doctor)May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Omnia sunt communiaMay 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Yosef ShenbergerMay 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Chen- May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Shireen Abu Akleh
May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Giuseppe Mariani (doctor)- May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Enkeli-Elisa
- May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Italy
- May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Irving L. Branch
Other nominations
June 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Kai Bumann- June 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Liu Zhaohua
- June 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Joanne Witt
June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris (Friday the 13th)- June 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Sylke Haverkorn
- June 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Florida Right To Clean Water
- June 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Ellaisa Marquis
- June 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Maizbhandari
June 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mental Hospital, Pabna- June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mackenzie Fierceton
June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/William D. Leahy- June 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Jacopo da Trezzo
June 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Roman BunkaJune 13: Template:Did you know nominations/The Witcher (Prószyński i S-ka)- June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Traubel
- June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/House Bill 5414
- June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/WAQI
- June 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Palu
June 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Kommt her, ihr Kreaturen all- June 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Displaced aggression
- June 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Lawyering (book)
- June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Janssen
June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Supply-side progressivism- June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Gita Sarabhai
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) 17:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Prep 7: J. Michael Miller (nom)
Unlike July 1 (where there were two special occasion hooks competing for one image slot), this was the only special occasion hook requested for July 9. @Theleekycauldron: (promoter) may I ask why exactly was this passed over for the image slot? The quality of the image chosen instead wasn't even superior (500×375px vs. 841×925px for the special occasion one). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your question implies that if it’s a special occasion hook, it will get the image slot. There is no such rule or convention. Schwede66 20:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not every image can be posted at DYK, and we shouldn't be giving any special preferebces out, including to date request hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no written rule or convention that states that a special occasion hook will get the image slot, but that has been the unwritten practice for some time (I've had 25 such hooks since 2012). It happened as recently as May this year with Ron Miles (also a birthday special occasion DYK), even though I believed File:Ron Miles 2009.JPG would not to be placed in the image slot because it was blurry. For this nom, I would completely understand if the chosen image that ran instead was a higher-quality image or something unusual like an animated graphic. But it defies comprehension how File:Columbiasundial.jpg is worse quality-wise compared to File:Archbishop Miller.jpg – any neutral observer could see that. Then again, … —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any such written or unwritten rule, convention, or practice. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 23:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think there's actually been such a rule or practice where special occasion hooks must be image slots. For example, I requested both Eir Aoi and Megumi Nakajima as special occasion hooks (both had images in their nomination), but ultimately they were not selected for the image slot. I've seen it happen with special occasion nominations by other editors as well. It does happen sometimes that special occasion hooks are on the image slot, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule and the decision ultimately lies with the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, Bloom6132 – I'm sorry this discussion keeps happening. I respect and admire both you and your work, and I don't want to get into a dispute with you, so I'll leave a brief statement here – and then the ball's in your court. My understanding of the process is that the promoter has discretion over the image slot and placement of hooks, unless there is a consensus elsewhere (usually WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS) to change it. For this particular instance, I've all but made up my mind on which image i want in the lead, and I find it unlikely that I will be persuaded to freely change my mind. So: I won't be watching this discussion unfold too closely, but if there is a consensus to in any way override my decision, ping me – I'd be happy to make the changes myself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I absolutely support theleekycauldron's decision. The image selected is much more interesting than an underexposed picture of some guy like we've seen litterally a million times. Incidentally, the fact that it's that guy's birthday may make it a "special occasion" to him and his loved ones, but not to anyone else in the world. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 02:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any such written or unwritten rule, convention, or practice. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 23:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no written rule or convention that states that a special occasion hook will get the image slot, but that has been the unwritten practice for some time (I've had 25 such hooks since 2012). It happened as recently as May this year with Ron Miles (also a birthday special occasion DYK), even though I believed File:Ron Miles 2009.JPG would not to be placed in the image slot because it was blurry. For this nom, I would completely understand if the chosen image that ran instead was a higher-quality image or something unusual like an animated graphic. But it defies comprehension how File:Columbiasundial.jpg is worse quality-wise compared to File:Archbishop Miller.jpg – any neutral observer could see that. Then again, … —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not every image can be posted at DYK, and we shouldn't be giving any special preferebces out, including to date request hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- It ridiculous we're even discussing this. There's no such rule or practice. Special occasion hooks run on particular dates. That's it. Whether it gets the image slot has nothing to do with it. EEng 01:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Queue 5
I have changed this hook as the original one's grammar seemed a bit off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- ... that Pacific Cyber/Metrix's Bubbl-Dek fit into the floppy drive bay of IBM PCs, allowing it to take bubble memory modules?
- to
- ... that a Pacific Cyber/Metrix's Bubbl-Dek fits into the floppy drive bay of an IBM PC, allowing it to take a bubble memory module?
DYK's June (and May!) wrapped, 2022
- C. J. Cregg: ... he wants to know if we want to say something funny.
- Carol Fitzpatrick: "That's twice in four years, some of you guys must really be mad at me?"
- C. J.: Something funnier than that, but... yeah.
- From The West Wing's "Evidence of Things Not Seen" (2003)
Hi everyone, and welcome to yet another installment of the DYK wrapped! I hope we've all come to accept by now that this is just gonna be an on-off thing for the foreseeable future. For now, we shall start as we have always done, with a selection of our best-performing hooks![a] Did you know...
- ... that the "most famous picture of a lunch break in New York history" (pictured) was actually a publicity stunt? by Kavyansh.Singh – 59,651 views in 24 hours
- ... that transgender pioneer Barbara Ann Wilcox (pictured) proposed to her husband on the day she met him? by Sdkb – 47,327 views in 24 hours
- ... that The Most Dangerous Animal in the World (pictured) was an exhibit at the Bronx Zoo in 1963? by Bruxton – 43,747 views in ~22.9 hours
- ... 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? by Bruxton – 32,894 views in 24 hours
- ... that Paul Arzens created the electric egg (pictured) in 1942, during the war in occupied Paris? by Artem.G – 15,745 views in 12 hours
- ... that water pours from the Dinoša mulberry tree (pictured) for a few days each year? by Bruxton – 15,503 views in 12 hours
Good stuff, quite good stuff. So, what's happened? Quite a lot! No huge, flashy RfCs, but we have been attempting to start our very first rendition of the "unreviewed backlog mode" proposal as the backlog of unreviewed hooks spiked. I have consistently delayed my promise to implement an approved bot that will check for post-promotion modifications to hooks, but we have introduced PSHAW, the Prep Set's Half-Assed Workbench, an automatic DYK promotion tool! It makes life much easier for those who work in the preps. The table column that gives us the approved hook count broke... twice, actually! We've had a couple discussions on who gets to decide what goes in the image slot, a discussion on how and if the Juneteenth flag should get an image slot (spoiler alert: it did), and more discussions about hook accuracy – the last being courtesy of WP:ERRORS. And though we've welcomed new nominators and welcomed back old faces, we've also had to say goodbye to our longtime prepper, SL93, as he takes a well-earned indefinite break from the craziness that is DYK's promotion process. Speaking of the prep set promotion process, has the SOHA been moved yet?
Oh, lovely! Big thanks to Wugapodes! As a special nod to Schwede66, I want to (four months late) mention his work on the Weston House hook. As he left on my talk page:
Weston House was part of a triple nom. Stunning architecture, highest heritage rating, and it got bowled soon after the Christchurch earthquakes. Once I had written the article, I contacted the owner; really just to draw her attention to it as it was clear from her blog that she had a deep affinity for the building. She loved it! Got a real thrill out of seeing her old house on Wikipedia. Told me that her husband, with whom she had a shared love for the building, had since died. She dug out some neat photos and I coached her how to upload them to Commons. That's where we got the eventual lead hook photo from, with that photo classes better than the one it replaced while the hook sat in the queue. And to top it all off, by pure coincidence we had this on the MP on her wedding day, which she was very pleased with.
We do make a difference on the personal level sometimes :) Lastly, our lovely quality quirkies, which are much easier to find now that the WP:DYKSTATS page has been largely overhauled by yours truly! Actually, to tangent about that for just a second – if you go there, and to the "Monthly DYK pageview leaders" tab, you can see all kinds of cool month-over-month stats to show how DYK hooks perform! It's easy to find your own hooks, and copy and paste the template code to make your own table. And now, back to the quality quirkies! Did you know...
- ... that Las Vegas radio station KVBC-FM offered Monica Lewinsky $5 million to do a tell-all interview? by Sammi Brie – I'm glad the radio hooks have begun to omit their callsigns, they seem to be doing much better since!
- ... that the Gould Memorial Library once hosted pie-throwing contests to raise money? by Epicgenius
- ... that Arlene Kelly made her international debut for the Ireland women's cricket team after nine of their regular players were unavailable for selection? by Lugnuts
- ... that the village of Eziler in Turkey has a girls' floor hockey team, but it has no gym? by CeeGee
- ... that "Es tönen die Lieder", a German round about greeting spring with songs, first appeared in 1869 in a collection of works by Adolf Spieß, who developed a series of school-gymnastics steps to it? by Gerda Arendt
- ... that István Banó collected Two Pieces of Nuts in Baranya? by evrik
That is all I've got – hopefully, finishing the modification checker comes soon? I've got no guarantees. Excited for what comes next, both at the preps and all over DYK – happy July, everyone!
Notes
- ^ The seven highest hooks from May 2022 outperformed all hooks from June 2022, despite similar averages, so I've just printed the top three from May followed by the top three from June.
- Comment: Thanks for the update. I have one of my own favorite quotes from W2: "If You Were In An Accident I Wouldn't Stop For Red Lights." - Donna Moss
- Bruxton (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Stats trivia and images
Yesterday's lead hook List of United States Military Academy First Captains, while not a record breaker, resulted in 6,402 views. What is interesting, is that the man in the picture, John Tien, garnered a whopping 11,990 views. The day before, his article only got 53 views. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. The photo of Tien is crystal clear, but I find the other photo more interesting. Bruxton (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's surprising. It's not uncommon for very niche topics to get a massive increase in views especially if they're in the lead slot. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Where is everybody?
Granted, I've been pre-occupied for a few days, but this is the first time ever, that there were no queues loaded - and nobody was complaining. I'm working on a theory that space aliens finally landed, and after careful analysis, decided the DYK regulars were the ones they wanted to take home. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Maile66: I've been kind of out of it all day, and SL93 is out of it indefinitely... I was going to send up a flag sometime tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about other DYK regulars, but I personally don't pay nearly as much attention to preps or queues when I'm not building preps. I will try to now because I didn't think it would get this bad with queues. SL93 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I just loaded two queues, so we're OK at the moment. My head has also been elsewhere the last few days. July 4th events, both in the neighborhood, and the television old movies . Total absorption to the disregard of anything not related this weekend. — Maile (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I keep getting distracted by off-wiki things, but was planning to post something before my bedtime. Glad you beat me to it. The Preps were basically full, so the queue promotions mean that prep loading can start up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm on the preps at the moment, should be done by day's end. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I keep getting distracted by off-wiki things, but was planning to post something before my bedtime. Glad you beat me to it. The Preps were basically full, so the queue promotions mean that prep loading can start up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I just loaded two queues, so we're OK at the moment. My head has also been elsewhere the last few days. July 4th events, both in the neighborhood, and the television old movies . Total absorption to the disregard of anything not related this weekend. — Maile (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Prep area 4
Perhaps one reason that there are few editors who work on prep sets... I promoted 4 hooks to Prep area four and three were removed. I am not sure that help is actually wanted in this area. Carry on. Bruxton (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: They weren't removed, they were moved – it was getting a little difficult to put in new hooks, and to adjust for u.s./non-u.s. balance (as well as bio/non-bio), so I did some rearrangement. Is that not okay by you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Pytest
This nomination has been stuck for a while owing to hook wording issues. Right now the main concern is that all of the proposals suggested so far are very technical and may not be easily understood by general audiences. If possible, a more broadly-appealing and understandable hook would be appreciated here. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with evrik above. ALT6 is the most understandable for me, personally. And I know nothing about technical things like this. The world is full of tech geeks who will probably understand every word of the article. But for the rest of us, ALT6 is probably the best choice. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- ALT6 is unsourced and wrong. It does not detect errors in programs. It *sometimes* detects errors in the *behavior* of programs. And sometimes doesn't. This is not criticism of pytest, only a reflection of what software testing is and what it isn't. You did notice that we went through exactly this issue already, once, where reviewers didn't pay attention to the incorrect and unsourced "make sure programs are bug-free?"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)