Wikipedia talk:Did you know
![]() | Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
![]() | DYK queue status
Current time: 19:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 19 hours ago() |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
QPQ timeouts
[edit]I've been noticing that we have an enforcement problem with QPQs. WP:DYKG says that QPQs should be submitted within a week of nomination, but we assume that nominators aren't aware of this requirement – we ping them five days in, and they give QPQs anywhere from 10–14 days after nomination and it usually slides. I think we should add "Please provide a QPQ within a week of nomination" to the nomination page smalltext when the QPQ line is left blank. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, (putting on my grumpy hat) there's no reason it should take a week. I'm more than willing to give DYK newbies slack, but I see some veterans doing this. That's just making more work for your fellow editors because they have to chase after you. I'd be in favor of a closing on sight any nom from somebody with more than N DYKs to their name (pick any reasonable value of N) if it does't have a QPQ. RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that it contradicts each other. I normally take "should" to mean that it's (strongly) recommended, but not mandatory. Meanwhile, the phrase "please provide a QPQ within a week" sounds like it means that it must (mandatory) be submitted within 7 days of the nomination. Therefore, I think that 10 days should be the normal maximum and 14 is the absolute maximum. at Template talk:Did you know, it says that "
a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues
" and I take couple to mean two. I'm thinking the phrase "as you have nominated more than five articles, a QPQ is required. This should be done within 7 days with 10 being the absolute maximum" fits me better. JuniperChill (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)- meh. i think a week is more than enough time for something someone should already have on them when they make the nomination. The week is just a courtesy – if it were up to me, we would require nominators to do their QPQs well before the nomination, so that if the check bounces (the nomination gets pulled off the Main Page), then the credit becomes invalid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- And I have been reviewing DYK articles well before my sixth nomination. I never thought I would be good at reviewing them, especially my first one. Good thing they don't expire. I actually track my reviews and cross them out if used. I do think a week is already a good enough time though. JuniperChill (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- meh. i think a week is more than enough time for something someone should already have on them when they make the nomination. The week is just a courtesy – if it were up to me, we would require nominators to do their QPQs well before the nomination, so that if the check bounces (the nomination gets pulled off the Main Page), then the credit becomes invalid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and change WP:QPQ from "Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete."" to "A nomination may be closed as "incomplete" if a QPQ is not submitted within a week". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking more like "A QPQ must be submitted (for those required to submit one) at the time of the nomination." If you're too busy to do your QPQ now, then hold up your nom until you've got time. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I have no objections, but I suspect a lot of nominators might. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we have more nominations than we can handle. If people object to getting their act together on time and stop nominating, that's to our benefit. Seriously. RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like that idea. Those other editors can just not nominate then. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Special:Diff/1241179543. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should honestly go even further. QPQs have a reputation for being sloppy reviews just done to get a credit – when nominations get pulled off the Main Page, we should be revoking people's QPQ credits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, boy, and I thought I was being bold! RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this too, but only for mistakes that those editors should already know about. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quite often the QPQ runs after the hook you're using it for, which could create a fair bit of complexity as to who owes a QPQ and when. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could either require that QPQs be completely finished before they can be used, or accept QPQs that haven't run on a provisional basis (holding the nomination until the check clears). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- PS, as a practical matter, I would suggest that at least for a while, people still be given warnings along with a pointer to the rule change. It's one thing to prod the herd in the direction you want them to go, it's another thing entirely to stand in front of the herd while doing it and get trampled to death. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you've acted a bit hastily. One of the reasons that the QPQ timeout limit is seven days is because after that is over, a nominator can't immediately renominate with a QPQ done (because WP:DYKNEW no longer applies). If a new nomination is closed immediately, the nominator can now just open a new nomination with a QPQ; so in effect, the new WP:QPQ protocol is just the most annoying way of pinging the nominator asking for a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted the bold change as it's too bold and deserves more than 50 minutes of discussion. One of the reasons we have never required QPQs at the time of nomination is that some nominations, particularly some of the lengthier 5x expansions, take all of a week to complete, so there is no time to do a thorough QPQ. I notice that isn't mentioned, and there seems to be little sympathy for these sorts of significant contributions to Wikipedia. If that's DYK's future, it seems to me a shame. At the same time, there are people who seem to nominate many new articles a week and rarely have their QPQs ready. I have less sympathy in that case, since it seems to be a failure to plan one's time (as opposed to not having enough of it). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- About theleekycauldron's suggestion, which is really a different matter altogether, it's something I've thought about over the years, and something I'd be in favor of, depending on the issue behind the pull. (Is this pulled from main page only, from main page and queue, and even from prep?) If it's something that's supposed to be checked and wasn't properly done so, then I think it makes perfect sense to require a replacement QPQ for the one that was botched, and hold up noms from the reviewer until it's done. Of course, it might ultimately lead to people no longer being welcome at DYK because their QPQ reviews continue to be problematic... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would play it like this:
- Until a nomination is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected, the nomination can only be used as a provisional QPQ. Provisional QPQs are good enough to keep a nomination from failing, but a nomination using a provisional QPQ cannot be promoted. Using provisional QPQs is discouraged; nominators should come prepared with full QPQs ahead of time. (Alternatively, we could choose not to accept provisional QPQs.)
- Once the nomination's run is finished, it is no longer a provisional QPQ and is usable as a full QPQ unless:
- The nomination ended in failure (including being irreversibly pulled from the Main Page),
- The nomination would have been pulled from the Main Page had a serious problem with its hook or article not been fixed.
- If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.)
- If a provisional QPQ becomes invalid, the nominator using the provisional QPQ must provide a fully valid QPQ within a week, else the nomination fails.
- I think it'd be worth studying if there's a pattern of reviews of nominations that fail. I'll look into that... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm torn on provisional QPQs. One the one hand, it's more complication and it adds to the backlog. On the other hand, not allowing it feels draconian. Still, I think I'm leaning against it. It'll suck, but people will get used to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a lot of complication for it's not clear what value. What's a "Provisional QPQ"? Just keep it simple; you make a nomination, you do a QPQ. I don't buy this idea that people don't have time to do their reviews. That's part of the system, do your share. If you're going to start on a big project and you're not sure you'll be able to get it done in time, get your review out of the way first. Or if some unexpected crisis happens, post a note here asking for an exception; as long as you're not a perennial extra time requester, I'm sure people will be happy to give you another day or two. Or maybe some kind soul will offer a QPQ donation. Leaving things dangling just makes additional work for your fellow editors, and that's a problem. RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. Just, no. An extra layer of near-impenetrable complexity that everyone has to work through, not only nominators but reviewers and prep-builders and admin queuers? I'll pass. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would play it like this:
- I think you've acted a bit hastily. One of the reasons that the QPQ timeout limit is seven days is because after that is over, a nominator can't immediately renominate with a QPQ done (because WP:DYKNEW no longer applies). If a new nomination is closed immediately, the nominator can now just open a new nomination with a QPQ; so in effect, the new WP:QPQ protocol is just the most annoying way of pinging the nominator asking for a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should honestly go even further. QPQs have a reputation for being sloppy reviews just done to get a credit – when nominations get pulled off the Main Page, we should be revoking people's QPQ credits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Special:Diff/1241179543. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't agree with the recent changes. The problem with this is that people may not have time to do a QPQ at the same time that they are nominating an article. This particularly applies if someone is in the midst of a 5x expansion and wants to submit the nomination before the deadline.
- In addition, I don't think this would prevent someone from just doing a QPQ three days after nomination, and then reverting the closure of their nomination. I'd rather we wait a few days rather than immediately closing nominations without QPQs. Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I have no objections, but I suspect a lot of nominators might. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking more like "A QPQ must be submitted (for those required to submit one) at the time of the nomination." If you're too busy to do your QPQ now, then hold up your nom until you've got time. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith and AirshipJungleman29: Yeah, agreed. Simpler draft:
- A nomination is not usable as a QPQ until it is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected.
- If the nomination fails (including being pulled off the Main Page) due to an error the reviewer should have caught, the reviewer may not use the nomination as a QPQ. If such an error arises and someone other than the reviewer fixes it, the QPQ credit may be deemed invalid at the discretion of whoever evaluates it when used.
- A nominator must provide a valid QPQ within a week of nomination, else the nomination can be closed without warning.
Basically: if you screw up, we take your QPQ credit back. If we have to clean up your mess, we take the credit back. Get your QPQ done ahead of time. Sounds pretty simple to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but "ahead of time" can mean as much as two months ahead of time. Why not just say that if a nomination you review gets pulled due to an error you should have caught, you have to provide two QPQs on your next nomination? Still runs into the problem of how you define "should have caught". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even when wearing my grumpy hat, I don't think we want to start making QPQ credit contingent on quality of the review. Newbies won't be doing high-quality reviews. Our response should be to educate them how to do better reviews, not punish them for not doing a good enough job. If somebody is chronically doing junk reviews, eventually it'll become obvious and we can deal with that though more education and encouragement. That's certainly true for people whose names appear on WP:DYKLIST or WP:DYKPC.
- I imagine my first QPQs were total trash. I know for sure my first queue promotions were and I only kept at it because leeky provided the right mix of explaining to me what I needed to do better, encouraging me to do more of them, and not making me feel like an idiot. RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: I thought of that, I'm just not sure how we'd enforce it... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is starting to feel like instruction creep. I think the simplest solution, for now, would just be to strict with enforcing the "QPQ must be done within a week of the nomination" guideline. In fact, I think we should actually encourage QPQs to be done before making nominations, and I'm actually surprised we aren't already doing that. The issue with enforcement is that such nominations are often overlooked due to us having a high load. It's actually a lot easier now ever since the change that made it visible how many nominations a nominator has; prior to that you would have to check manually to know if an editor required a QPQ or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- My initial change was a net reduction of 167 characters. That sounds more like instruction un-creep. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was talking more about the idea of "provisional QPQs", an idea with good intentions but would add needless complexity. It should be as simple as "you have a QPQ, or you don't." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- My initial change was a net reduction of 167 characters. That sounds more like instruction un-creep. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand the disconnect. I previously proposed elswehere that QPQs should be done before the nomination. This isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are some edge cases where it may be permissible to do so, such as during 5x expansions. However, these would be more like the exception rather than the nom. We should really be discouraging nominators from only doing QPQs after their nominations, and I'm actually shocked and disappointed at how common it is even for regulars to delay their QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know who you are referring to, so that made me laugh. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't referring to any specific editor. I've seen multiple editors doing it, so it was meant to be a general statement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. :-) Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't referring to any specific editor. I've seen multiple editors doing it, so it was meant to be a general statement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know who you are referring to, so that made me laugh. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are some edge cases where it may be permissible to do so, such as during 5x expansions. However, these would be more like the exception rather than the nom. We should really be discouraging nominators from only doing QPQs after their nominations, and I'm actually shocked and disappointed at how common it is even for regulars to delay their QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I'd support requiring reviews be done before a nominated hook appears on the list of noms to be approved. Too many nominations, not enough worker bees. Valereee (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Provisional QPQ is too complex, and it will create more administrative problems. I am not sure QPQ at time of nomination needs to be the rule (saying that as someone who usually does this), but we can definitely remove the requirement for a second notification before the week timeout. CMD (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rule could be relaxed for newer reviewers who may not have gotten the hang of DYK reviews yet, but it shouldn't be encouraged for DYK regulars who are already used to the process. If a nominator knows they have an upcoming nomination, they should also make the time to review another. If circumstances mean they can't do a QPQ ASAP, they could probably just ask for an IAR exemption here at WT:DYK.
- Another idea I have is that we can also encourage reviewing nominations even if you don't have plans to make your own. Several of our regulars only review other nominations when they're planning to make their own nominations, but won't do reviews otherwise. If we encourage (not mandate) regulars to do reviews even without upcoming nominations, there are two benefits: one, they can build up a stash of QPQs that can be used later and thus helping to mitigate the current issue, and two, it would greatly help in clearing up the backlog. In my eight years here on DYK I'm actually somewhat surprised this isn't more common or encouraged, speaking as someone who regularly reviews other noms even when I don't have open noms of my own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's even worse on GAN, where we have editors with hundreds of noms with no reviews. I think it shows a bit of disrespect for the idea of a volunteer community, but there's no enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, GAN is much tougher and higher pressure than DYK. It can seem a lot more intimidating given that the checks are more stringent, and even regulars may not simply have the time, capability, or will to review. After all, if a bad GA passes, it can be a stain on the reviewer even if they did their review in good faith. It's less understandable with DYK given that our standards are more reasonable and less stringent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Having a firm baseline rule and encouraging specific further actions on top of that is a better system than creating a more stringent rule but crafting various exceptions. We should include the best practice as a guideline, but newer reviewers, difficult 5x expansions, and perhaps other edge cases (finding a good seven day old article by someone else you think would make a good DYK?) seem likely to come up. (Is the backlog a huge issue right now? Template talk:Did you know/Approved has exceeded PEIS.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- My personal belief, and it's one I've been promoting for many years, is that we continue to focus on tool-based systems to help nominators and reviewers. One sticking point for me is the identification of typos, which I have a problem doing because my eyesight is terrible. I know we have various bots and editors who do this kind of work separately, but it's surprising that we don't have a toolset like this to help reviewers in general. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could we somehow grey-out any nom that doesn't include a QPQ? Valereee (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- My personal belief, and it's one I've been promoting for many years, is that we continue to focus on tool-based systems to help nominators and reviewers. One sticking point for me is the identification of typos, which I have a problem doing because my eyesight is terrible. I know we have various bots and editors who do this kind of work separately, but it's surprising that we don't have a toolset like this to help reviewers in general. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's even worse on GAN, where we have editors with hundreds of noms with no reviews. I think it shows a bit of disrespect for the idea of a volunteer community, but there's no enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- At least twice, I've completed a QPQ and forgot to put it in the box (Kemah Bob, Nighat Arif). I'm all for less time being given after a reminder (say, one day instead of seven), not sure if I could support the reminder being done away with entirely.
If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.)
I can think of a couple of cases: Dus Bahane, which was withdrawn after I eventually reviewed it, and Tobey (song), which was pulled after a new rule was invented on the hoof. If we are going to make QPQs provisional, I would oppose rejecting them for being provisional; aside from the fact that I review oldest first and it's pretty unusual for any of my noms to be approved ahead of their QPQs, I'd worry about the effect this would have during a backlog as I can well see a situation where nominators simply turn in an old QPQ rather than wait for a new one to clear.--Launchballer 06:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- The idea of a provisional QPQ seems less than ideal to me, especially if we are now requiring people to do QPQs before nominating articles. This would potentially mean that people can't nominate any articles until the QPQ is already off the main page (or rejected), which could take weeks or even months. By then, the nomination for which the QPQ was conducted would have already timed out.
- Thus, I strongly oppose the idea of provisional QPQs, especially if we are now requiring that they be completed prior to nomination. I am neutral on the new QPQ requirement, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just do one now and bank it. Next time you make a nom, use it for that nom, and bank another. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually what I'm thinking of doing. Ideally I'd like to have 2–5 QPQs on hand to use whenever I nominate something. While I somewhat disagree with immediately timing out nominations that don't have QPQs, I also don't have a philosophical objection to that rule.
- My objection only applies to provisional QPQs. If you could not use a QPQ until it appears on the main page or is rejected, then you would need to start preparing for a nomination several weeks in advance, just so you could use that QPQ. This also has the side effect of unnecessarily delaying nominations arbitrarily, solely because of what article the nominator chose to review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just do one now and bank it. Next time you make a nom, use it for that nom, and bank another. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I support having to supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If someone forgets, leeway can be given after a reminder ping. If an editor chronically does not post a QPQ at the time of nomination, their nominations can be closed without a reminder ping. Another idea is to tell nominators that they cannot nominate new DYKs while a previous nomination is missing the QPQ: nominators should prioritize QPQs first, not work on other articles while a QPQ is missing. I do not support pulling the QPQ if problems are found in the reviews: if an editor chronically supplies bad reviews, it should be brought up at WT:DYK. Pulling QPQs will cause editors to review the easiest DYKs, leaving older nominations stranded without reviews. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Z1720 above. Waiting for a QPQ to be usable until the nom is off the main page means that a person submitting their 6th DYK nom would need to prepare QPQs potentially months in advance. This isn't sustainable. I fully support making QPQs required at the time of nomination (my personal workflow is to do one with my nom tab open and unsubmitted; that way I don't forget). I also think we can empower reviewers to reject noms with an incomplete or faulty QPQ. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Z1720 and Vanamonde93 above, I don't think waiting for a QPQ to be usable is a good idea, instead we should require a valid QPQ to be provided at nomination time (through warnings in the template and nomination wizard), and reviewers being allowed to reject noms with invalid or non-existent QPQs. Sohom (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose "provisional QPQs" as a good-intentioned idea, but one that adds too much complexity to the process. Any issues where a QPQ was provided, but the review turned out to be defective, can already be dealt with through existing processes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I weakly support the idea of requiring the QPQ to be submitted at nomination time, though I think that should take place after 10 nominations because people nominate articles for DYK before reviewing another. I just think that a review from someone can take place either within a few hours, days or even more than a month. Those between 6-10 nominations (inclusive) will have to provide a QPQ within 7 days (168 hours) and editors on the fourth/fifth day will be pinged/posted on talk page and if not, the nom will close after its 7th day. I'm also thinking that for a QPQ to be valid, it needs to be a proper review. Not just a checkmark with a few words (saying "it meets all the DYK criteria" is insufficient). I also weakly oppose a provisional QPQ due to the complexity. JuniperChill (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Currently, a review only needs to be started, and the reviewer needs to be responsive. I do not support that the review needs the checkmark because some nominators do not respond quickly, causing delays. This would also cause editors to review the easiest ones rather than starting a longer review. I agree that "this is approved" is not sufficient, but DYK already insists that reviewers indicate that they have checked all the criteria, so this inclusion is not necessary. I also do not suggest having separate rules for those between 6-10 reviews as too many rules will complicate things. Also, there is a simple solution to this problem: remind nominators that QPQs do not expire and that they should be reviewing noms early.
- tldr: Keep it simple, change the rules that a QPQ must be provided at the time of the nomination, leeway is given for new reviewers and those who make a mistake, no leeway given for those who chronically do not supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- QPQ rules never actually required green ticks anyway. The only requirement has been to check every criterion: saying simply "it passes the guidelines" doesn't count. Some regulars (admittedly myself included) may condense some of the checks for time reasons, but generally all criteria are still expected to be checked. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- As an editor who sometimes has difficultly getting all the QPQs done at once and remembering which ones have / do not have QPQs (due to volume of work), I do not see what benefit there is in immediately failing with no warning whatsoever any nomination not providing a QPQ from the start. Seriously, what harm is there in a simple reminder that you're missing a QPQ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The benefit is that it encourages nominators to do their QPQs without reviewers having to chase after them. Reviewer time is our scarcest resource, and we have more nominations than we can handle. If making things easier on reviewers comes at a cost of making things harder on nominators, I'm fine with that. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- How difficult is it to say "@Username, please provide a QPQ by [date] or this will be closed"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, these notifications don't take up much time anyway. Perhaps there might be a way to automate these notifications? Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can see a few possibilities. One would be some kind of filter that would warn nominators that they haven't done a QPQ (the filter would of course be disabled for exempted nominators). The notice would tell the nominator that if they submit the nomination without a provided QPQ, their nomination is liable to be closed. That way, they are already aware that they have to do the QPQ as soon as possible, if not before the nomination. If that kind of technical implementation is not feasible, another option could be to have a bot running that would leave editors a similar message, warning them that their nomination is liable to be closed if a QPQ has not been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- One straightforward solution to that would be to simply do the review before making the nomination. This can be done in conjunction with reviewers being encouraged to review nominations even when they don't have ongoing nominations of their own. With their possible benefits (such as cutting down the backlog and ensuring a QPQ is ready by the time of the nomination), I'm actually shocked that neither practice is encouraged more. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is more difficult than us saying "Please provide a QPQ by the time of nom or this will be closed". As it stands, notifications can be ignored and unfinished DYKs take up space on the nom page for longer than they should. CMD (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, these notifications don't take up much time anyway. Perhaps there might be a way to automate these notifications? Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- How difficult is it to say "@Username, please provide a QPQ by [date] or this will be closed"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The benefit is that it encourages nominators to do their QPQs without reviewers having to chase after them. Reviewer time is our scarcest resource, and we have more nominations than we can handle. If making things easier on reviewers comes at a cost of making things harder on nominators, I'm fine with that. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are two changes here, one that seems excellent and easy to implement and one that needs further fine tuning. I support an immediate implementation of "qpq must be provided within a week, unprompted, no excuses for experienced nominators". Cancelling qpqs where hooks have been pulled is more complex and should be discussed separately. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd also support requiring nominators to provide a QPQ within a week (or even immediately, provided that this is made very clear in the nomination wizard). I agree that the QPQ cancellations/provisional QPQ should be a separate discussion, too, since I imagine that there could be more pushback to that proposal (as evidenced by the comments above). Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of "you need to provide QPQs at the time of the nomination", I think we can give leeway for relatively new DYK contributors (for example, those who are only just starting to be required to need a QPQ). Less leeway should be given to those who chronically fail to give QPQs on time. A wait of at most a day, or even three days, could be reasonable, but going over a week without doing a QPQ, reminder or no reminder, is less excusable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support QPQ provided at the time of the nomination. Right now, we give one-week warnings and it has not deterred prolific editors from waiting until the last minute. Giving a week causes some editors to procrastinate, nominate at DYK without the QPQ, and then forget about it until an editor pings them. Implementing a strict at-the-time-of-nomination rule will initially cause a few editors to get upset, but after about a week those editors will change their behaviour and complete the QPQs before the nomination. I am willing to have upset editors for a week to have this implemented. Leeway can be given to editors who are nominating their 6th or 7th DYK, which can be prescribed as-needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Indulging my penchant for storytelling... I used to participate in a racing event that was scheduled to start at a certain time every week. People were always showing up late and the race organizers would wait for them. People were always complaining about the late-comers, and the late-comers were always countering with, "It's so hard to get here", "There was traffic", "I had to wait for my crew to show up", blah, blah, blah. Finally, we voted that the race would start on time, even if nobody was there yet. The first week the rule was in effect, a couple of competitors didn't make it on time and missed the start. After that, people started showing up on time. RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720, as I see it, if people started immediately closing nominations that did not have the required QPQ, nothing is stopping the nominators from doing a QPQ and then reverting the closure of the nomination, on the grounds that they did do a QPQ. Provided the QPQ is supplied within seven days of the article's creation/expansion/promotion to GA, the article would still be new enough to qualify for a full review. As such, I think this would only create unnecessary conflicts, which we really should try to avoid.I would however be all right with closing nominations without QPQs after 7 days. Closures of such nominations cannot be easily contested unless the article was further expanded, or promoted to GA, during that time. Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this passes, what would stop the nominators is that such actions would be against consensus, and thus disruptive. CMD (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In theory, it would indeed be against consensus. However, in practice, the DYK rules do not prohibit articles from being renominated (and given a full review) if they are still eligible for DYK. If the first nomination is closed solely due to a lack of QPQ, and if a QPQ is then provided for the second nomination, some people would be hard-pressed to see such a renomination as disruptive, since the second nomination would not technically break any rules. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's prohibit repeat nominations as part of this proposal if it passes then. CMD (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In theory, it would indeed be against consensus. However, in practice, the DYK rules do not prohibit articles from being renominated (and given a full review) if they are still eligible for DYK. If the first nomination is closed solely due to a lack of QPQ, and if a QPQ is then provided for the second nomination, some people would be hard-pressed to see such a renomination as disruptive, since the second nomination would not technically break any rules. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this passes, what would stop the nominators is that such actions would be against consensus, and thus disruptive. CMD (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- That might be too extreme. A simpler solution would simply to revert any attempts to reopen as disruptive, with a note to the nominator that they should have done the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If they really disagree with the decision, they could instead bring it up on WT:DYK, where individual cases could be heard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how one is extreme and one is simple, they are both the same set of actions. CMD (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, prohibiting repeat nominations, at least as currently worded, sounds too extreme. Rather than saying "no repeat nominations", it would just be safer or more accurate to say that such reversions without discussion may be considered disruptive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is the difference? CMD (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think NLH5 is referring to the fact that a blanket ban on repeat nominations doesn't allow the possibility of reopening the nomination, if a valid QPQ is provided after the nomination is closed. On the other hand, bringing up the issue at WT:DYK leaves open the possibility of opening such a nomination, even if it's against the rules to reopen an archived nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is the difference? CMD (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, prohibiting repeat nominations, at least as currently worded, sounds too extreme. Rather than saying "no repeat nominations", it would just be safer or more accurate to say that such reversions without discussion may be considered disruptive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how one is extreme and one is simple, they are both the same set of actions. CMD (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That might be too extreme. A simpler solution would simply to revert any attempts to reopen as disruptive, with a note to the nominator that they should have done the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If they really disagree with the decision, they could instead bring it up on WT:DYK, where individual cases could be heard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A better solution, if it's technically possible, would be making the QPQ line on the nomination form mandatory to fill in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you're talking about SD0001's script, it's possible assuming they agree to make the change. More tricky would be having the script sense if the nominator is exempt, and at any rate DYK can all be done manually so if someone is going to wikilawyer a consensus policy is better than a technical tweak. CMD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think figuring out if a nominator is exempt shouldn't be hard to implement since User:SDZeroBot already runs a tally of users vs/ number of nominations which is used in our nomination template. (courtesy ping @SD0001) Sohom (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the script already knows which nominators are exempt (this is used to show the count of QPQs required within the interface). I am not sure when I can get to making the neccesary changes, so if someone can prepare sandbox versions of the two scripts, that would help. – SD0001 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think figuring out if a nominator is exempt shouldn't be hard to implement since User:SDZeroBot already runs a tally of users vs/ number of nominations which is used in our nomination template. (courtesy ping @SD0001) Sohom (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you're talking about SD0001's script, it's possible assuming they agree to make the change. More tricky would be having the script sense if the nominator is exempt, and at any rate DYK can all be done manually so if someone is going to wikilawyer a consensus policy is better than a technical tweak. CMD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In theory, we could do that as well. However, in practice I prefer Airship's idea of requiring that the QPQ be filled out before the editor is allowed to submit their DYK nomination (provided that it's technically possible). That way, there would be less potential for conflicts regarding incomplete QPQs. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A better solution, if it's technically possible, would be making the QPQ line on the nomination form mandatory to fill in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support QPQ provided at the time of the nomination. Right now, we give one-week warnings and it has not deterred prolific editors from waiting until the last minute. Giving a week causes some editors to procrastinate, nominate at DYK without the QPQ, and then forget about it until an editor pings them. Implementing a strict at-the-time-of-nomination rule will initially cause a few editors to get upset, but after about a week those editors will change their behaviour and complete the QPQs before the nomination. I am willing to have upset editors for a week to have this implemented. Leeway can be given to editors who are nominating their 6th or 7th DYK, which can be prescribed as-needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes I do expand, create an article or get it through GAN but don't have the time or energy for an immediate QPQ. In these cases, I sometimes nominate immediately and do the QPQ later when the reviewer points out the absence. Is this now undesirable practice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo, just do some QPQs when you aren't expanding or creating and do have that time and energy, and bank them. As long as you keep up with your nominations, you'll always have one waiting to be used. The reviewer won't have to point out the absence, wait for you to fix it and ping them back, come back in, refresh themselves on what they were thinking at the time, and finish the review for you. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of our regulars tend to be late in providing QPQs. Should we ping or at least inform them about this discussion, to ask for their input or at least make them aware of it? Given that if the changes push through they will be affected, I think it's fair for them to at least know about the (possible) change. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there's particular people you're aware of who should know about this but haven't been involved in the discussion, then by all means let them know. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the issue: I don't have a list handy. I do recall that sometimes, Thriley and Gerda Arendt have been late in providing QPQs, but there are probably others too that haven't been informed yet. Some of the others like Epicgenius and BeanieFan11 have already commented. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping, but I don't care. I tried to make facts known via DYK, and his worked for about a decade, but right now, it's frustrating. I would have liked to say something about a wonderful baritone who was active in Poland and Spain. Instead, we'll say that there was a concert for his 70th birthday, which is utterly uninformative about what he meant to the world. Leave me alone please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there's particular people you're aware of who should know about this but haven't been involved in the discussion, then by all means let them know. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, Storye book, and Sammi Brie: It's not clear what it means to be a destination for illegal logging. Also, the article talks about logging, but only hints at it being illegal, there's no clear statement that illegal logging is happening. RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will take a look in a few hours if not resolved by then. SL93 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being confused by the article's wording. I looked at the sources, and I suggest just removing the word "illegal". SL93 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I promoted this, but Airship did. Now I remember that I wanted to promote the hook, but I never got around to it. Damn, I feel stupid. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whhops, I must have been looking at the wrong template when I pinged people. Sorry about that. I should have pinged @AirshipJungleman29 @Generalissima and @Vanderwaalforces RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is set to hit the main page next. RoySmith BorgQueen Theleekycauldron. I still think that removing "illegal" is the easiest fix. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Removed illegal. BorgQueen (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen: I took this bit of this source to at least heavily imply that logging in this part of the forest is illegal:
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)At the higher reaches of the island, there are remains of an old arboretum, although it has suffered significant storm damage since its installation during colonial times. This installation covers an area of around 60 ha and is currently under the protectorate of the Ministry of the Environment and Forest. However, logging still continues within this zone, as there is essentially no active policy enforcement.
- @Theleekycauldron OK, feel free to restore illegal then. BorgQueen (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen: I took this bit of this source to at least heavily imply that logging in this part of the forest is illegal:
- This is set to hit the main page next. RoySmith BorgQueen Theleekycauldron. I still think that removing "illegal" is the easiest fix. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whhops, I must have been looking at the wrong template when I pinged people. Sorry about that. I should have pinged @AirshipJungleman29 @Generalissima and @Vanderwaalforces RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, Crisco 1492, and UndercoverClassicist: Given that we just had H. Wortman Pumping Station, would it make sense to spread this out a bit? RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would have no objection, but equally I doubt many readers will be sharp-eyed enough to notice a glut of Hendrik Wortman DYKs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind either way. I don't see Wortman making a return to the main page after this, so anything works. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection, but I would be more concerned if there was a long stream of such hooks rather than just two of them. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
A better way to spot maintenance tags?
[edit]There was a (legitimate) complaint on WP:ERRORS today that Dollar Mountain Fire had several {{failed verification}} and similar templates. To be honest, if I had promoted that set, I doubt I would have noticed because they're buried in the text. I wonder if we could do something like add {{failed verification}} (and other disqualifying templates) to a hidden Category:Pages with templates we do not want on DYK. Then maybe some script that turned the hook red when added to a queue or prep page? That would make it trivial to spot these problems. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The tags were only added after the hook had begun its run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah. Then in addition to the javascript, we need a time machine :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In addition to the fact that the tags were added after the hook appeared on the main page, it seems the editor who made the ERRORS complaint was the same editor who added the maintenance tags. That being said, however, doesn't DYKcheck warn you if there are tags like {{CN}}? Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- With regards to the Dollar Mountain Fire I have addressed the issues @The ed17: had (of which the , and given the very short time it was on the main page would like to see it placed back into a perp set for a full run if possible. As I removed the citations to the "Doukhobor websites". the hook will need to be slightly modified to "shelter near a Creek".--Kevmin § 17:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the logic here. It got pulled because you used an unreliable source. It's unfortunate that this wasn't caught in any of the DYK review steps, but ultimately it's your responsibility to use good sources. Why does this qualify for a second run? RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Tagger and ERRORS reporter here. (Kevmin, I promise I'm not following you -- I have WP:DYK watchlisted.)
- To RoySmith's point: in Kevmin's defense, it was a pretty minor use of an unreliable source. And while I'm waiting for confirmation, I am starting to suspect why I failed to verify so much of the article's information was that a citation URL was inaccurate. See my first paragraph in this edit. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: The source in question, which I feel meets the "Secondary" qualifications in WP:SPS, was used only 3 times (out of then 37 cites in the article), 2 as support for the the other citations in the section and once for the words "rocky outcrop", NO extraordinary new information was taken from the source, and the other sources also affirm the information. I feel you have a rather punitive view of DYKs that aren't immaculate (see your comments above regarding QQP) but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.--Kevmin § 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
[...] but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.
In your case though, the article stayed on Main Page for more than 3 hours. [1] BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)- 3 1/2 hours out out of a 24 hour run, thats less then 1/6th of the run. I feel that falls into "or so" of the total run period. And as I note a quick look at the archives shows that this is not an unusual ask or a rarely granted thing.--Kevmin § 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a case-by-case thing. It was on DYK for such a short amount of time that I don't think it would hurt to allow it to run again as long as the issues have been addressed. We tend to be less lenient for hooks that run at least half of their prescribed time, but 3.5 hours seems short enough that I'd support a re-run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- 3 1/2 hours out out of a 24 hour run, thats less then 1/6th of the run. I feel that falls into "or so" of the total run period. And as I note a quick look at the archives shows that this is not an unusual ask or a rarely granted thing.--Kevmin § 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: The source in question, which I feel meets the "Secondary" qualifications in WP:SPS, was used only 3 times (out of then 37 cites in the article), 2 as support for the the other citations in the section and once for the words "rocky outcrop", NO extraordinary new information was taken from the source, and the other sources also affirm the information. I feel you have a rather punitive view of DYKs that aren't immaculate (see your comments above regarding QQP) but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.--Kevmin § 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the logic here. It got pulled because you used an unreliable source. It's unfortunate that this wasn't caught in any of the DYK review steps, but ultimately it's your responsibility to use good sources. Why does this qualify for a second run? RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe @The ed17: and I have smoothed out the citation needs on Dollar Mountain Fire and it is ready to be rerun.--Kevmin § 18:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Just so you know...
[edit]I'm the primary builder of Prep 6, so I can't promote it to the queue... just in case anyone is expecting me to do the work. :) BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did the last one. One of my inviolable personal rules is never do two in a row, to make sure others have an opportunity to
share the workloadcontribute. RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)- I won't judge you because I know you've been doing a lot. Perhaps @Z1720 could help. BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 has also been doing a lot. Perhaps one of our DYK regulars who object to doing their QPQ on time could do a few. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect we won't hear from them. I've noticed that when we propose requiring more help from regulars, all our regulars see it and chime in on why they hate the idea. When we simply ask for that extra help, it's apparently invisible. :D Valereee (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could think of DYK as filmmaking. Far more people prefer to be actors than production staff. BorgQueen (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not to be that guy, but most DYK regulars aren't admins, so they wouldn't be able to move sets to queue, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could think of DYK as filmmaking. Far more people prefer to be actors than production staff. BorgQueen (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect we won't hear from them. I've noticed that when we propose requiring more help from regulars, all our regulars see it and chime in on why they hate the idea. When we simply ask for that extra help, it's apparently invisible. :D Valereee (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 has also been doing a lot. Perhaps one of our DYK regulars who object to doing their QPQ on time could do a few. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I won't judge you because I know you've been doing a lot. Perhaps @Z1720 could help. BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Done BorgQueen (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Translations
[edit]I reviewed Jacques Lewis and noticed that it was a translation from the French language article. The review template {{DYK checklist}} asks "Is the article free of material copied from other sources?" and a translation does this so I flagged it as an issue. But I wasn't sure how this usually goes down at DYK and the guidelines don't seem to mention the issue.
Looking at the archives, I find that the issue was raised back in 2008: Translations as "new" content. That highlighted significant aspects like the use of automatic translation and the difficulty of working with foreign language sources. But it didn't seem to arrive at a clear conclusion.
Now, it's our general policy that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and so we can't take a foreign language article on trust. Myself, I happen to have started a foreign topic recently – Café Adria – but I worked that up from scratch using English language sources and so I feel I really understand the details. I now find that there's a Polish language article but I'm not using that yet as I don't know much Polish and it uses lots of Polish language sources.
So, I reckon that we should set quite a high bar for translations at DYK but maybe there's some existing guidance that I've not found yet.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson "At the time of nomination, an article must have been created, expanded fivefold, moved to mainspace, translated from another wiki, or promoted to good article status within the last seven days." per Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. SL93 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The nomination seems to be within existing guidelines. WP:DYKCRIT does allow content translated from other Wikipedias, as WP:DYKNEW includes "translated from another Wikipedia". The article should be "free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing", but reusing content from other Wikipedias is not a copyright violation as long as the source is acknowledged, as it was in the edit summaries of Jacques Lewis. TSventon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not so simple. There's still the issue of plagiarism and close paraphrase which is a moral issue more than a legal one. And the copyright issue can still be quite significant because, if there's a copyright violation in the original language then the process of translation will tend to mask it. For example, the Earwig tool won't detect it, right? And English language editors won't be able to spot likely violations as they won't tend to be fluent in the original language.
- For example, in the case of Jacques Lewis, the original French language article does not seem to have passed any quality control process. I have some competence in French but am not confident that I can check for copyright issues in that language. The nominator doesn't seem to have any special competence either.
- As a new page patroller, I have reviewed several translations organised by the Open Knowledge Association. They take sensible measures like recruiting authors with relevant language skills and only translating articles which have passed an FA review in the original language. Even with these precautions, there can still be issues and so it seems best to leave translation to specialists like this.
- If DYK accepts any type of translation on an AGF basis then it's asking for trouble because most editors won't be able to make the usual checks. As DYK is oversubscribed and doesn't need additional nominations, it can do without these complications.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Trust me, as a regular CCI editor and occassional Copypatrol user, I would love a rule that we only accepted webpage sources in the English language, readable by Earwig (no more PDFs, Jstor, or paywalled newspaper articles ever again!) but... you know, that's really not going to work. Putting aside that the DYK, GA, and NPP aren't able to catch more insidious copyright issues (heck, I had to tell an actual admin that they weren't allowed to copy paste in plot summaries last month), this seems like a rather....bizarre attempt at fixing a problem that is by no means any more common or hard to fix in translated wikipedia articles than it is, in, say, an article which relies solely on non-English language academic books, currently nearly impossible to find in the United States because the Turkish government is actively suppressing their translation and re-printing. And again, from a CCI perspective, I'd support that! As a woman who finally got her hands on a copy of an 80s book about the importance of stockings in Kurdish culture, I would not. Because that's essentially what your proposal would lead to- the exact same arguments would apply, re ease of fact checking, the ease of hiding blatant copyvios or close paraphrasing within a translation, the overburdence on DYK. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @GreenLipstickLesbian
a copy of an 80s book about the importance of stockings in Kurdish culture
sounds fascinating! I'm an avid collector of hard-to-find academic books too, especially those that are not in English or my native language, Korean. BorgQueen (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @GreenLipstickLesbian
- I agree with GreenLipstickLesbian above. If we stop allowing articles with foreign-language sources just because Earwig can't check them and just because they're in a different language, it would introduce more unneeded bureaucracy to DYK. This is kind of like banning print-only sources—Earwig wouldn't catch copyvios in these sources, but banning them would introduce a whole new problem (specifically, WP:DYKCOMPLETE issues) in an attempt to solve another problem. In addition, Earwig can't detect close paraphrasing that well, so reviewers still have to look through the article rather than fully relying on Earwig.If we want to be more strict on translated articles, we can just ask for an additional copyvio check from someone who is fluent in the source language. In this case, that would mean waiting for a French speaker to verify that there aren't any copyvios. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Trust me, as a regular CCI editor and occassional Copypatrol user, I would love a rule that we only accepted webpage sources in the English language, readable by Earwig (no more PDFs, Jstor, or paywalled newspaper articles ever again!) but... you know, that's really not going to work. Putting aside that the DYK, GA, and NPP aren't able to catch more insidious copyright issues (heck, I had to tell an actual admin that they weren't allowed to copy paste in plot summaries last month), this seems like a rather....bizarre attempt at fixing a problem that is by no means any more common or hard to fix in translated wikipedia articles than it is, in, say, an article which relies solely on non-English language academic books, currently nearly impossible to find in the United States because the Turkish government is actively suppressing their translation and re-printing. And again, from a CCI perspective, I'd support that! As a woman who finally got her hands on a copy of an 80s book about the importance of stockings in Kurdish culture, I would not. Because that's essentially what your proposal would lead to- the exact same arguments would apply, re ease of fact checking, the ease of hiding blatant copyvios or close paraphrasing within a translation, the overburdence on DYK. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TSventon I'm on my phone right now, so I can't fix it or ask the translator to, but it's not sufficiently attributed. Saying "from x wikipedia" is not enough, by the terms of the CC-BY-SA license we all publish under. The edit summary needs to contain a link to the source text, or a full list of authors(impractical in most cases). If anybody wants to fix it before I get on my computer, there's instructions at WP:RIA GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Done. Good point, GLL. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added the translated page template to the article talk page too. BorgQueen (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Red flags
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Red_flag_f1.jpg/220px-Red_flag_f1.jpg)
In recent discussions of errors, it occurred to me that it would be good to flag up issues with a topic or hook in a way that would alert the subsequent reviewers who process it through the prep, queue, posting and error-handling processes. For example, claims of a "first" often turn out to be erroneous and so it's good to highlight these even if they initially seem ok. I think of these as red flags and so have started experimenting with this as a visual warning.
In the review of Jacques Lewis, the hook claimed that he was the "the last living French veteran of D-Day". A claim of being last seems rather like a claim of being first and so I gave that a Redflag using the convenient {{redflag}} template. I suggest that others try this too to see if it's helpful.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson an interesting idea. I think {{redflag}} could sound like a definite no, so I would suggest the {{Caution sign}} template. TSventon (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Reopening highest averages method DYKN
[edit]Hi, could this nomination be reopened? I have several alternate hooks on the topic that I'd like to nominate and I think could pass. Thanks! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why didn't you respond for over a week? SL93 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Extremely busy, so it completely slipped my mind. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we shouldn't reopen the nomination because we already have tons of nominations, and you have been actively editing for days now. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I've been busy with (which I'm very sorry about). I have a GAN and a lot of other electoral system article edits to take care of. Page views on electoral system articles usually spike just ahead of US elections. Too many wikifires to put out on other things, so I completely forgot about this nomination. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, just wanted to follow up on this, and apologize again for forgetting about this nomination.
- I think the nomination has a good shot of being accepted, and there are lots of interesting hooks that could be used for this article. It's worth noting the original hook had already been approved and was about to go on the main page, before the nomination was derailed by a search for additional sources and questions about phrasing (though I'd already cited multiple academic sources on the topic).
- I'd be OK with having this sent to the back of the queue. When it comes to grounds for opening/closing, I think the decision should be made on the basis of whether there is likely to be interesting material that could be made into a DYK hook, rather than on the basis of whether there are other hooks in the queue at the moment.
- cc @Theleekycauldron, @Sawyer777, @AirshipJungleman29, @Black Kite, @TSventon, @SnowFire. Besides the 1876 hook, I think there are good hooks for this article based on either quota rule violations, or on the situations discussed in the apportionment paradoxes article. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I understand the frustration regarding the nomination being failed, but this may be a case where it would be for the best to let it go. Nominations don't always work out, and most of the DYK regulars (myself included) have experienced the disappointment of a failed nomination. However, we already have a large backlog as it is, so reopening the nomination and probably adding to it would add to the workload. It's disappointing, but this shouldn't preclude you from improving and nominating another article, where you can use this experience to learn and have a better chance to succeed next time.
- In addition, it is not uncommon for nominations to be closed due to nominator inactivity, so rest assured you are not alone in cases like this. Reopening the nomination now would be unfair to other nominators in similar situations who were not given the same opportunity. In addition, you were already pinged to return the nomination, and nominators are expected to follow their nomination and be ready to address issues. It sucks, but that's how DYK works: it is on the nominator, not the reviewer(s), to make sure issues are addressed promptly.
- Rather than dwelling on this one nomination, my suggestion would be to move on and improve another article, then nominate that for DYK. When one door closes, another one opens. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we shouldn't reopen the nomination because we already have tons of nominations, and you have been actively editing for days now. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Extremely busy, so it completely slipped my mind. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Message for rejected noms
[edit]I have just closed Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Wayanad landslides as ineligible due to a recent bold link appearance on the mainpage. The instructions in this case say to "Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|2024 Wayanad landslides|header=yes|sig=yes}}", which reads "Your submission of 2024 Wayanad landslides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified". It's not very friendly to somewhat lie and tell someone their submission has issues that need clarification, when in fact the submission has been fully rejected. If we need to send a message in the case of rejection, could it be a slightly less misleading one? CMD (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- good catch, clarified the instructions at WP:DYKRI :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, it also needs adjusting in Template:DYKSymbols2. CMD (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- done! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, it also needs adjusting in Template:DYKSymbols2. CMD (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Chipmunkdavis: Try it with "|fail=failed" as a parameter. I've road-tested it at @Chin pin choo:'s talk page and it seems to work.--Launchballer 08:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Acknowledged.
- Thanks for reviewing though. Chin pin choo (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: yeah, but looking at that message... i think there's some room from improvement. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- What would you put?--Launchballer 07:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@PersusjCP, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and BorgQueen:
Two citation needed tags need to be addressed before this can appear on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I have them written down, but I can't find the source. Once I find it I will add back in (but for now I just removed them) :) PersusjCP (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible unfair rejection of nominations
[edit]Part one
[edit]I think that User:ltbdl unfairly rejected two nominations at Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam and Template:Did you know nominations/Splitwise, without allowing the nominator to respond to concerns raised. Any comments are welcome. Pinging me is not necessary. Flibirigit (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The two should not have been rejected with those explanations. I don't think Template:Did you know nominations/Splitwise has much hope hookwise, but that is not communicated through the rejection of a single hook. On the other hand, while Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam does have neutrality problems, they are not "insurmountable". For example, simply delete everything from "Scientific research" onwards and the neutrality problems are mostly removed while the article still meets DYK requirements. CMD (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Part two
[edit]I am getting the impression that the DYK community has drifted toward rejected nominations as early as possible. While agree with the principle of WP:DYKTIMEOUT that nominations more than two months could be rejected, why are we as a project rejecting nominations less than two months old? It is very frustrating to see a message posted on Template:Did you know nominations/Nathaniel Coe for closure when it is only six weeks old, and nobody has asked for it to be adopted. Seems like the desire to rush reject a nomination goes against WP:DONTBITE the newbie nominators. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't about biting the newcomers, it is about nominators being expected to follow their nominations and be responsive to any issues raised regardless if they are newcomers or veterans. It is their responsibility. If a regular has been actively editing but has not been responsive to pings or comments, that is an issue. If a nominator is not active, especially if it has been a long time since their last comment, then although regrettable, closing a nomination as stale/abandoned is fair. A wait of about a week is reasonable, but if the editor hasn't edited in several weeks, it seems fair to close their nomination, even if it's not necessarily through a fault of their own.
- The thing is, DYK is getting very backlogged and reviewers/promoters are under strain. In the past, we tended to be more lenient to such cases, only for it to result in nominations dragging on to promotion (or rejection). Recently, editor patience has run out and consensus is leaning more towards more proactive rejection of nominations. There simply is less appetite now for nominations to drag on.
- This comment is not targeted towards the Nathaniel Coe nomination specifically but is a general statement. The point I'm making is that, I understand that it may seem unfair to you about DYK's recent changes, but they did not happen in a vacuum. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Surtsicna, and NeverBeGameOver: I suggest we not use this image. It's poor quality in many ways. I couldn't even tell it was a picture of two fish until I looked at the large version. RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I clearly see it as two fish in the small version. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Erm, Roy, I think you might need a new pair of glasses. :) BorgQueen (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- ...I don't see what else it could be... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the white and green fish may blend in with the white and green background for some, especially if someone is not primed to look for fish. (One fish is also a bit fuzzy, but that's one of those issues which is alleviated by the smaller size.) CMD (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- On my desktop, I can clearly see the fish on the left. I can make out the fish on the right if I look for it, but basically it's doing what millions of years of evolution have enabled it to do; blending in with the background. On my phone, it's all just a blob. From a technical quality standpoint, the best images I see in this prep set are File:Sof'ja Kropotkina.JPG from Sophie Kropotkin and File:WOSU office 02.jpg from WOSU-TV.
- And now that I look at this more, there's another issue. The caption says "Perugia's limia male pursuing a female". What WP:RS do we have that says which gender each of those are, and that the activity pictured is pursuit? RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks fine no matter how I go about it. I'm fine with fixing the caption. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Trimmed the caption. BorgQueen (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can't get myself to agree with changing the image when the only way that I can barely see it is if I remove my glasses. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the image is fine. And beautiful. BorgQueen (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks fine no matter how I go about it. I'm fine with fixing the caption. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the white and green fish may blend in with the white and green background for some, especially if someone is not primed to look for fish. (One fish is also a bit fuzzy, but that's one of those issues which is alleviated by the smaller size.) CMD (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the standard (not ideal) to which DYK should hold itself?
[edit]Earlier this year, efforts began to repair DYK, but I have questions about DYK itself. The big one: What's the bar?
Is it Britannica's level of accuracy? In The Myth of Brittanica, scholar Harvey Einbinder crucified that professional encyclopedia for their frequent errors. We'll never get things perfect, so what is our threshold for acceptable?
Below are two contested DYK hooks compared to news coverage. Many issues at WP:ERRORS come from content cited to sources making the same or similar errors. Andrew Tate's DYK spurred a lengthy and intense discussion at WP:ANI. Jex Blackmore's DYK was one of many disputed at WPO. In both discussions, there were legitimate concerns about hooks describing living people in a way that could potentially give a reader the wrong idea. However, neither hook is outright false, and content similar to the contested hooks appeared in many news sources. Changes to the subjects' articles addressed both issues, but the changes were minor.
- Andrew Tate
Described by DYK as: "'absolutely a misogynist'
"(DYK)
Described by news outlets as:
- Guardian
- "
On one YouTube video, Tate described himself as “absolutely a misogynist”.
" - BBC
- "
In an interview with another YouTuber, he said he was "absolutely a misogynist", and added: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist."
" - Daily Mail
- "
Tate claims he is 'absolutely a misogynist'.
" - Mirror Online
- "
In an interview on YouTube, Tate admitted he was "absolutely a misogynist", and said: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist."
" - The Independent
- "
In an appearance on the Anything Goes with James English podcast last year, Tate said: “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away.”
" - LA Times
- "
As a part of a two-hour interview in 2021 on the podcast “Anything Goes With James English,” Tate said, “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f— you money and you can’t take that away.”
" - Forbes
- "
Tate describes himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist,” and has stated that women "belong in the home" and that they are "given to the man and belong to the man."
" - Washintgon Post
- "
Self-described mysogynist Andrew Tate [...] who has described himself as “absolutely a misogynist,” told NBC News that he plays an “online character.
" - The Signal
- "
Tate describes himself as “absolutely a sexist” and “absolutely a misogynist,” going as far as to say that he prefers women that are as young as 19 because they have been with less men and are therefore sexually innocent.
"
Later changes:
Changed from "influencer, and has described himself as "absolutely" misogynistic and sexist.
"(14 May 2024) to "influencer, and has previously self-described as a misogynist.
"(15 May 2024)
- Jex Blackmore
Described by DYK as: "an American pro-choice activist and Satanist
"(DYK)
Described by news outlets as:
- Dazed
- "
Satanist activist and performance artist, Jex Blackmore
" - LifeNews
- "
Satanist leader Jex Blackmore
" - ABC News
- "
The Satanic Temple in Detroit [...] founder Jex Blackmore
" - Variety
- "
Jex Blackmore, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple and the head of its Detroit chapter
" - Jezebel
- "
Satanic Artist and Activist Jex Blackmore
" - Lansing State Journal
- "
Jex Blackmore, Satanic Temple's spokesperson
" - Morning Sun
- "
Satanist Jex Blackmore
"
Later changes:
Changed from "Blackmore was affiliated with the Satanic Temple
"(17 May 2024 ) to "Blackmore was affiliated with the Satanic Temple, a non-theistic organization,
"(25 May 2024)
- Questions
So, are we holding ourselves to a higher standard than Brittanica? Higher than the baseline of professional journalism? I think that's a consensus that has developed. If our bar, at least for the main page hooks, is raised above those sources, we can't settle for citing and summarizing them. So how do we do it? Rjjiii (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are we really holding ourselves to the baseline of professional journalism if we don't issue retractions when we get things wrong? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any professional journalists would probably vomit at the thought of including a little box filled with random trivia on the front page of their website/newspaper, so there's that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The standard is " if you can complain about it, no matter how minor, inconsequential, or honestly still correct, the hook will be changed". That's the level I've seen over the years. Many of the complaints at ERRORS are specious at best and tendentiously wrong much of the time. But the complaint was made, so we must change it to suit the complainers. SilverserenC 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to propose adding retractions to the {{DYK talk}} template, as one possible location. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Nathaniel Coe might need adoption
[edit]Template:Did you know nominations/Nathaniel Coe is six weeks and might need adoption, as its nominator has not edited in one month. The article only has minor concerns to be addressed. Problems are not insurmountable. Flibirigit (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am looking at your concerns on the nom page now to see if I can help in any way. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I remedied the birthdate confusion. Moving on to your other points now. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the quote box as tangential. All that is needed now is to choose a hook. I would like to see Narutolovehinata5 return to this role, as they have good instincts for this. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I remedied the birthdate confusion. Moving on to your other points now. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been involved in building this prep. I've promoted two of the hooks and reviewed one. So I believe it is best if someone else could move it to the queue. BorgQueen (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, Y2hyaXM, and Bsoyka: excessive WP:CLOP with nytimes.com/2022/10/06/education/learning/mississippi-schools-literacy.html RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith Just made an edit to the page that should fix this. Please let me know if you see anything else wrong with the page. Cheers! Y2hyaXM (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- If not, I will take a look later. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible DYK
[edit]I find the DYK process a little challenging, but if anyone wants to pick it up, the new page, Scethrog Tower, offers possiblities:
- DYK that George Melly sold paintings by René Magritte and Pablo Picasso to buy a stretch of riverbank at Scethrog Tower?;
- DYK that Jeremy Paxman slept in a tent at Scethrog Tower when staying with George Melly to go fly fishing?;
- DYK that Bruce Chatwin wrote much of On the Black Hill at Scethrog Tower and dedicated it to Diana Melly?.
Or they could all be combined into one monster hook! KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I must admit, as a fan of quiz shows, I do quite like ALT1. Why are you not able to do this yourself, given that you didn't seem to have that much of a problem with your sixth nomination last month? (For the record, I'm not opposed to nominating this myself, but I'd want a QPQ.)--Launchballer 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am pretty certain there's at least one useable hook in there somewhere. As to why I don't just do it myself, it's a fair point, but frankly I find the DYK process to be a little painful. I only did the last one as a thank-you to the editor who took the trouble to get me the photos. So, as I do not intend to take it forward myself, but nonetheless am confident there is a pretty good hook in there, I thought I'd flag it in case someone else wanted to pick it up. I've done this before, although I can't remember with which article. KJP1 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. For your information, the aforementioned sixth nomination used Poll (parrot) and you appear to have an unused QPQ for Robert Micklewright. (I just went through your edits to the Template: space.)--Launchballer 13:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am pretty certain there's at least one useable hook in there somewhere. As to why I don't just do it myself, it's a fair point, but frankly I find the DYK process to be a little painful. I only did the last one as a thank-you to the editor who took the trouble to get me the photos. So, as I do not intend to take it forward myself, but nonetheless am confident there is a pretty good hook in there, I thought I'd flag it in case someone else wanted to pick it up. I've done this before, although I can't remember with which article. KJP1 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- ... that the S1/S2 rolling stock of the Amsterdam Metro was also a tram?
@Styyx, Sammi Brie, and SL93: I'm not sure this hook is appropriately understandable for a reader of average understanding: what's "rolling stock"? What do S1 and S2 mean in this context, is it just a name? Why is it surprising that it's a tram? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- One could expect a train with the name metro actually run as a metro and not a tram. I thought rolling stock was pretty basic language as you pretty much can't have a transit article go without it (eg. New York City Subway). S1/S2 is indeed the name of the train type.
- PS. in 'murican it would be the subway running as a streetcar. Styyx (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how a metro differs from a tram (one has rubber tires and the other runs on rails, maybe?) but I think it's fine. I think most people will recognize that "metro" and "tram" are both words that describe types of transportation systems and will click through to find out what the difference is. RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- there's lots of technical terms needed to write an article; doesn't mean everyone knows what they mean, and I think "rolling stock" is pretty obscure even if basic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with replacing "rolling stock" with "cars" or "trains". RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Prep 6: Poll (parrot) (nom)
[edit]- ... that a parrot reportedly screamed profanities at the funeral of U.S. president Andrew Jackson?
@Di (they-them), KJP1, and SL93: I don't think "reportedly" is good enough of a hedge for this hook. Snopes rates the claim as "unproven", noting that they found no contemporaneous evidence from the claim, only a letter written from one of the funeral's attendees to a historian decades after it happened. I think the hook should be workshopped to make it clear that this seems to hover closer to a good story than it does reported history. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: The Snopes article quotes a professor of history as saying that the event is "uncontroverted but also unauthenticated", meaning that even though it hasn't been proven, it's not widely doubted that it happened. Being uncontroverted, "reportedly" is an OK way to phrase it (IMO). Di (they-them) (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Uncontroverted" just means "this circumstantially fits with what we know about Johnson and Poll"/"we have no reason to think this person is lying", but that's not the same as "the general consensus of scholars is that this probably happened". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron - isn't that what "reportedly" is doing as a caveat? Rev. William Menefee Norment recounted the story to Samuel G. Heiskell, and Heiskell reported it in his Andrew Jackson and Early Tennessee History. The article lead then goes on to report Snopes' reservations. If it was just an internet "story", I could understand but as the teller not only attended the funeral, but had also met Jackson in life, I'm not sure I get the concern. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- p.s. The Rev. Normant doesn't look like a man given to the telling of tall tales! - he's third from left, front row, [2].
- I think it should say that "one funeralgoer later recounted" the story – one of the annoying nuances of history as an academic field is that eyewitness observations are way more unreliable than most people would intuitively guess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't run this at all. This is all just repeating the same cute story which may or may not be true, and we have no real way to figure out which. Surely we've got better stuff we could run? RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- That "reportedly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for its actual meaning "according to a 103-year-old source retelling the 76-year-old memories of a 92-year-old-man". The important bit of "uncontroverted but also unauthenticated" is not the first word but the last—the events were so old that Norment could have made anything up, no matter what he looked like. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This should get pulled. I went through and looked at all of the sources. Most of them are not up to WP:RS standards and I've applied the appropriate tags. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I pulled it. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SL93: Please see my response to RoySmith, I don't think that pulling the hook was the right decision. RoySmith tagged most of the sources as unreliable despite the fact that all but one are 100% reliable (Snopes, the Audubon Society, and subject matter experts are not considered unreliable). Only one source could be considered potentially unreliable (Lafeber Co.) but its claims are backed up by overwhelmingly reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I really don't understand what criteria you hold for something not being up to RS standards. The sources that you tagged as unreliable are news articles, Snopes (which has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RSP), the Audubon Society, Jacksonian America (a website run by a subject matter expert), and a museum. All of these seem to pass RS standards to me. The only source that I could imagine being potentially unreliable would be Lafeber Co., but its claims are backed up by all the other reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can't just say, "This was in a newspaper, therefore it must be true". This is summed up at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which says,
Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication
. - Look at, for example, "Strange But True: Andrew Jackson and the cursing parrot", in the Naples Daily News. This has 7 unrelated factoids, ranging from marriage practices in ancient Rome to how seahorses reproduce. How likely do you think it is that each of these statements was fact-checked, analyzed, and scrutinized before publication? Or is it more likely this is just clickbait to drive traffic to the ads on the page for ED pills, miracle mouthwashes, and a shower head which is claimed to be "Life-Changing". RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Snopes, the Audubon Society, the museum, the Washington Post, and Jacksonian America (run by professor Mark Cheathem) are all reliable sources that cover the subject. If it was just local news articles you would have a point, but it's not. Also, the Naples Daily News source is listed in conjunction with reliable sources to the same claim. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'm a little curious as to why you would seemingly have redundant sources all over the place? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that it's better to have multiple sources backing up claims. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'm a little curious as to why you would seemingly have redundant sources all over the place? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Snopes, the Audubon Society, the museum, the Washington Post, and Jacksonian America (run by professor Mark Cheathem) are all reliable sources that cover the subject. If it was just local news articles you would have a point, but it's not. Also, the Naples Daily News source is listed in conjunction with reliable sources to the same claim. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can't just say, "This was in a newspaper, therefore it must be true". This is summed up at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which says,
- I pulled it. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This should get pulled. I went through and looked at all of the sources. Most of them are not up to WP:RS standards and I've applied the appropriate tags. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Uncontroverted" just means "this circumstantially fits with what we know about Johnson and Poll"/"we have no reason to think this person is lying", but that's not the same as "the general consensus of scholars is that this probably happened". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)