(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 329: Line 329:
:::::::Adding "up to" might be a workaround, however, in my mind that suggests it is the maximum possible number allowed, whereas situations can arise where a unit is assigned more personnel than it's authorized. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Adding "up to" might be a workaround, however, in my mind that suggests it is the maximum possible number allowed, whereas situations can arise where a unit is assigned more personnel than it's authorized. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


*{{Re|Amakuru}} I have a great deal of respect for you. But your friend is restricted by Arbcom from posting to this talk page. Having you quote his opinion here, amounts to the same thing as helping him evade the Arbcom ruling. You are free to ask for clarification from Arbcom if you so wish. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 20:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
*{{Re|Amakuru}} I have a great deal of respect for you. But your friend is restricted by Arbcom from posting to this talk page. Having you quote his opinion here, amounts to the same thing as helping him evade the Arbcom ruling by proxy. You are free to ask for clarification from Arbcom if you so wish. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 20:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:10, 30 September 2019

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Return to 2 sets a day? (August 9)

@Yoninah: @Gatoclass: @BlueMoonset: @Cwmhiraeth: @Narutolovehinata5: @Gerda Arendt: @Vanamonde93: @Amakuru: @TonyBallioni: @The C of E: @David Levy: @Mandarax: @Valereee:

When we temporarily went to 2 sets a day back in February, we had 334 nominations, with 201 of those approved. Right now, all 6 Queues are filled. Prep 1 is full, with Preps 2, 3 and 4 nearly full.

Of what is not yet promoted, we have 344 nominations, with 155 approved. At 8 hooks per set, one set a day, it would take 20 days for all the currently approved ones to appear on the main page. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very active with DYK these days, but if you want my thoughts, I think it'd make sense at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if there would be more people willing to check every set and make sure no errors slip through. The last time we went to two sets a day there were noticeably more error reports than usual. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: That isn't a useful statistic...twice the number of hooks will mean twice the number of errors, no matter what our error rate actually is. We're only doing badly if there's more than twice the number of errors. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Vanamonde93. I was composing basically the same response at the same time, which resulted in edit conflict when I clicked "publish" :) -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it with comparative diffs, please. This rationale comes up everytime we need to go to 2 sets. But nobody ever provides comparative diffs to prove it. My memory says it makes no difference. When we went to 2 sets during the Christmas season, and I was one of a small skeleton crew working DYK, there were fewer errors than normal. And here's my diff. — Maile (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it means much, but TRM brought up that point a lot in the past. At the very least, it might be a good idea to be extra careful, just to make sure he won't point out more stuff. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion a while ago. Instead of shifting back and forth between one and two sets a day, I think we should just change the interval to 18 hours, resulting in four sets every three days, or slightly more than 10 hooks per day, which roughly matches the average rate of submission. -Zanhe (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
16-hour interval could work too, which results in three sets every two days, or 12 hooks per day. -Zanhe (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen anyone prove that there are more errors than normal with two sets a day so I don't see any problem. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe: Please see my reply below.
An 18-hour interval would be even more problematic; it would add the issue of coordinating DYK images/sets with other main page sections spanning two days, with four different DYK changeover times (and no easy way to predict the next one without keeping track or checking).
I humbly request that the update interval remain a factor of 24. —David Levy 00:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: In the previous discussion, I was assured by multiple admins that there's no reason the interval should be a multiple of 12 or 24. Several people even advocated using bots to adjust the interval dynamically to match the number of submissions per day. 18 is at least a multiple of 6. -Zanhe (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe: With all due respect for those admins, they don't deal with cross-section image size/formatting coordination – a task that I handle on a daily basis.
When I check Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, I see the next day's TFA, DYK and OTD sets and coordinate their image sizing/formatting accordingly. Sometimes, this entails cropping one or more for parity (in addition to the various enhancements and other modifications that I often perform). ITN isn't updated at regular intervals, but I include its images in this process as well.
A 12-hour DYK update interval complicates matters, as the second image of the day might vary in its nature (and appropriate sizing / aspect ratio) significantly. But the timing remains consistent and easily predictable (barring the occasional delay); it's simply an extra 12:00 update in addition to the one at 00:00, each and every day.
An 18-hour interval would result in a cycle in which updates occur at 00:00, 18:00, 12:00 and 06:00 (instead of at a finite number of consistent times each day). On top of coordinating the other main page sections' images with two DYK images, this would require coordinating half of all DYK images with the other main page sections' images across two different days.
Of course, Wikipedia is not about us, let alone me. It's the readers' experience that matters most. And in my view, varying DYK's update time(s) from one day to the next would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers, who would be less likely to recognize the schedule and find the content that they seek. —David Levy 03:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updating DYK more frequently than once per day disrupts its synchronization with TFA and OTD, making main page coordination (with respect to image sizing and overall balance) more difficult.
From my perspective, increasing the number of hooks to 11 or 13 would be preferable. I'm aware of the concern that this is too many for a reader to get through, but I would argue that few readers will see both 12-hour sets (because they expect a daily update and won't check more often than that), so an accelerated schedule results in a greater likelihood of hooks being missed. —David Levy 00:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: Personally, whatever the consensus turns out to be here, is what we will work with. But if I understand what you are saying, there have been suggestions that when we have a surplus of nominations, we could increase the number of hooks in the sets, rather than increase the number of sets in a 24-hour period. We are already occasionally adding an old hook or two to balance the Main Page visual. But if we make the additional hooks an everyday thing, then we get blow- back from those who don't think DYK should take up so much space on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, whatever the consensus turns out to be here, is what we will work with.
That goes without saying. I hope it's clear that my participation in this discussion (in response to your kind ping) is intended to contribute to the consensus-building process, not to impede it.
But if I understand what you are saying, there have been suggestions that when we have a surplus of nominations, we could increase the number of hooks in the sets, rather than increase the number of sets in a 24-hour period.
Yes, that's my preference (for the reasons cited above).
We are already occasionally adding an old hook or two to balance the Main Page visual. But if we make the additional hooks an everyday thing, then we get blow- back from those who don't think DYK should take up so much space on the Main Page.
It's mainly a matter of consistency. If DYK varies in length considerably from one day to the next, this causes imbalance (and measures to address it must be taken on the fly).
Conversely, if DYK were longer every day, the other sections (and ITN in particular) would be planned and maintained accordingly. —David Levy 03:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Levy makes some valid points and I would support returning to two sets a day so as to reduce the backlog of verified hooks. I would also encourage people to review additional hooks because there is an accumulation of around two hundred unreviewed nominations, and that results in too long a gap between creating an article and having it appear on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly against 18 hours, because it's not in sync with the daily other changes. Two sets is accepable for a while, but I'd prefer 10 hooks on a daily basis. The DYK section is too short on many days that I observe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, 18 hours is just too inconsistent. I don't mind either way on the 1 or 2 sets as we have got a bank of 149 at the moment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer adding hooks when we need to dig out. Even an extra hook a day moves us in the right direction. And is there a reason we repeat old hooks rather than using a hook from a current prep set? Repeating hooks when we've always got a backlog doesn't seem to make much sense.
Is 155 in the list of approved hooks a problem, or is it just that we're creeping up? I actively like having plenty of hooks to choose from when setting a prep. More approved hooks sometimes means more variety, so balance can be easier when we've got plenty to choose from. I'm not too concerned about the amount of time it takes; we're pretty good about making sure hooks requested for a particular date get moved along smartly. Is there a range we'd consider "ideal" for approved hooks? --valereee (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: the problem with the hook backlog, is that it just grows if not dealt with. Eventually, we have no empty slots to promote the hooks to. It's getting close to that now, so we need to clear out some, so the prep builders can work. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader and occasional contributor of DYKs, I think increasing the number of hooks slightly is a good way of addressing this long-term, but would support a period of two per day to reduce the backlog. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We generally go to two sets a day these days when the approved page is no longer displaying all the nominations in full because of software limitations, has that occurred yet - or have they altered the software so that is no longer a limitation?

Other than that, two sets per day is the best way to resolve backlogs, we can get through it quickly that way - within two or three weeks - and don't have to worry about doing it again for months. I am strongly opposed to reducing the backlog by increasing the number of hooks per set, it's much harder to create a balanced set with more hooks, it looks like a wall of text and does a disservice to the readership, and it's much harder for admins to verify longer sets, so IMO we should stick to the two sets per day solution as we've always done. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More daily sets vs. added hooks concept: I tend to agree that increasing the number of sets is the better of the two options. Having worked both ends, as a prep builder and as an admin promoter, I believe prep builders give careful consideration to even distribution of topics and global interest. Prep builders can spend a lot of time coordinating hooks for an overall prep set. An admin adding a hook or two later can be a last-minute grab based more on the Main Page esthetics. More sets is a cleaner way to reduce a backlog. — Maile (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of filled sets and no relevant special occasion hooks, so what are we waiting for? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm, since I was pinged, that I'm OK with two sets a day. It does mean more errors (twice as many per day, and possibly also more per hour, given that admin/reviewer resources will be more stretched). But we've done it before and the world didn't end, so if you guys feel it's necessary then so be it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also means twice as many error-free hooks on the main page. It just depends on which end of the telescope you're looking through there. — Maile (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not ok about there are many unapproved hooks, nearly 200. We would review unapproved hooks to clean the page 14.232.160.139 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a newcomer to DYK, I do/would find it confusing if the timing of the sets changes. I would not know how often to look for a new set, nor when a hook of mine might make it to the main page once it's in a queue. And how would the stats for page views be calculated and compared? I think it would make more sense to have more hooks in each set, and have one set per 24 hours. That is also more likely to be seen by readers in both hemispheres - changing every 12 hours would make it less likely for all readers to have a chance to see them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: We changed it to two sets a day on August 12. If you look at Preps and Queues, the third section on that page - "Local update times" - is actually a table that tells you when every Queue goes live. The table is updated automatically if we change the number of sets we run in a 24-hour period.

Update as of August 24

Update as of August 26

We've whittled the approved down from 201 to 100...back to one set per day? --valereee (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: @SL93: We have 275 nominations, with 175 not approved. I was just scrolling through nominations to look for one to review, wondering if maybe we just aren't reviewing enough of them. The backlog is not a new issue, and the oldest ones are listed at Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers. The question does arise as to whether or not we can come up with a method to move the older ones faster. We do a lot of waiting around for replies to issues raised in the review process. If anyone has a more efficient idea of moving the older hooks that wait in limbo for long periods, the process would benefit. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to valereee (and the question at large), I would continue two sets a day at least until we're down to around 40 to 50 approved (6 to 7 day backlog at one set per day); 100 is far too many (a 13 day backlog). We have some that were approved over four weeks ago and not yet been promoted. I consider it a good sign when my list of old nominations needing review cannot come up with around 36 to list because there aren't enough non-current nominations needing a reviewer; at the moment, we're ten or eleven days from that point.
One thing I've been contemplating, to address the 175–180 nominated-but-unapproved nominations issue—a number that tends to grow, because there are always new editors here at DYK who are not required to do QPQs, is to hold a DYK review drive, much like the bi-monthly Guild of Copy Editor drives when they encourage copy editors to tackle old, tagged articles needing copyedits. The GA space used to do these on occasion when their backlog got bad, and there's one in the works for September. The prizes are barnstars, and since the idea is to reduce the number needing reviews, giving extra credit for non-QPQs (or reduced credit for QPQs) would hopefully encourage people to review beyond the QPQ space. As for the waiting around, we could be less generous in the time we allow nominators to address issues, and could be specific about deadlines (GAN messages mention seven days when a nomination is put on hold, for example). However, we shouldn't penalize nominations that wait for reviewer attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just inform the nominators of older nominations that TRM often does high-quality reviews at lightning speed, but needs to be specifically invited by the nominator prior to any other reviewer chiming in. :) --valereee (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: as far as I know, that individual is restricted by ArbCom to not posting on this page. They are restricted for ArbCom reasons to their own error page, and to doing reviews by request. Advertising their services over here would seem to be evading the ArbCom decisioni(s) by proxy of whoever announces those services. And I might add, that on this talk page, quoting that individual almost verbatim about alleged errors, also seems to be evading the spirit and ruling of ArbCom. Should you feel otherwise, then you might want to consult ArbCom about their rulings on the subject matter.— Maile (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I sure wouldn't want to get anyone in trouble, including myself! Sorry, I had no idea anyone would object to letting noms know there was a fast reviewer available but that he needed to be explicitly invited. I don't remember quoting him here, but I wouldn't have considered it something I shouldn't do so I may have done so. Not sure why I'd quote him though, usually I have at minimum a slightly different take than his, and I probably as often as not disagree with him completely that one of his issues is actually an error rather than a stylistic preference. --valereee (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and I'm willing to give you a lot of leeway and good faith, because I believe you are very enthusiastic about doing the right things to help whatever project you're on. But probably the less mention here of that individual, the better. Thanks for your quick responses. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the agf, and heard! :D --valereee (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • Aside from the obligatory egocentric whining about my entry only getting 12 hours, there is something that strikes me as awkward. My entry was a biography of an American. The 12 hours it was on the front page were largely hours that most of the US was sleeping. If you're going to do 12 hour slots, it might make sense to take this into account when assigning slots. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: thank you for making that point, and I'm sorry you feel your hook didn't have the best exposure. (Personally, I was under the impression that people look at their computers more at night, during non-working hours, so I'm always happy to land a slot that's evening in New York.) When we used to prepare 8-hour sets, we were more conscious of the day/night time frame. But now, with nearly half of every set being U.S.-based hooks, I don't know how we can restrict the U.S. hooks to every other prep set. Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for considering it. It's not a big deal, I was just surprised when it wasn't there the next morning when I went to show it to somebody. Certainly, working through the backlog more quickly is a good thing, so I'm glad you're doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to 1 set a day? September 15

We're down to 48 approved nominations (173 nominated). Yoninah (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would be consistent with the above comment from @BlueMoonset: that, "I would continue two sets a day at least until we're down to around 40 to 50 approved ... " Thanks for keeping track of this. Cross your fingers that I did the reset correctly. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, I frankly think its early to do this: we have had a tremendous influx of new nominations beginning on September 1 (17 originally), and aside from September 2 (6), I believe every day has exceeded 10 new submissions except those still accumulating nominations. Going back to an eight a day burn rate—especially with a six set backlog—seems premature. Please set it back to two a day for now. Between filled sets and approved noms waiting for promotion, there are 96 in all; I would wait at least another few days, and perhaps more if the approvals spike a bit. We were down to a margin of 110 between total noms and approved noms, and are up to 125 at the moment; if that number could be trimmed by getting more approvals, we'd be in excellent shape. (When I checked ten hours ago, there were 61 approved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we'll have to wait until tomorrow to set it back to 2 sets a day, unless @Gatoclass: can provide some insight I don't have on the time switch. My understanding is that it needs to be reset a few minutes after an update. Wait too long, and it rotates the sets right then and there. I made that mistake a few months ago, and I'd rather wait until tomorrow 's rotation to reset it. Meanwhile, feedback from @Yoninah: about how the prep filling is going, is also welcome here. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, your understanding is incorrect; please take my word for it and revert your update now. (Or if you don't want to, look at that page's history; you'll see plenty of edits made at any number of times of day. There are times when it's inadvisable to go from two to one or one to two, but now or any time in the next ten hours is not such a time.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite likely that Maile has retired for the evening, so pinging a number of DYK admins (Cas Liber, Amakuru, Gatoclass, valereee, and Vanadmonde) in the hopes that one of them can revert Maile's edit to User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates (at 00:09 UTC) to return it back from 86400 (once a day) to 43200 (twice a day). Doing so any time prior to 12:00 UTC would be welcome, as that would return us to the original schedule. (How the bot knows when to do the next promotion: it takes Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, which is the time of the last promotion unless an admin has adjusted it, and adds the User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates value, which is the number of seconds to wait after Template:Did you know/Next update/Time before doing the next promotion.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. So, this needs to be redone after 12:00 UTC, but before 00:00 UTC? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I'm actually quite confused. Following your logic, the bot should take Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, currently 2019-09-15T00:00:00Z, and add User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates, which, before my revert, was 86400, or 24 hours; giving 2019-09-16T00:00:00Z: isn't that what we want? Or have I forgotten how arithmatic works? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, thank you very much. I apologize for the confusion, but I assure you that you've done the right thing, and that's all you need to do. What we want to do is continue to promote two sets a day for a little while longer, which means promoting one every 12 hours. (Maile was prematurely changing back to every 24 hours.) Your edit/reversion restores the 12-hour interval: if you look at the Queue page you'll see the schedule is every 12 hours, with the next promotion at 2019-09-15T12:00:00Z. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are special occasion hooks for 18 and 20 September which will need promoting when it is clear which set is best. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Cwmhiraeth. Under the circumstances, I would suggest promoting them as if the two-per-day rate is going to continue, and when we decide when to go back to one per day, we can do so with enough advance notice to plan for a switch back that ensures all special occasion hooks are correctly placed prior to the Time Between Updates change, a process that can require admin help if one or more hooks need to be switched into or out of queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, I did notice that we have a lot of early September nominations to promote. Since we now have 3 days worth of sets filled, I'll try to do reviews instead of promoting. Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the reserved slot for the September 18 special occasion hook to Prep 6. Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: @Yoninah: yes I was already offline when you posted we should not go to the 24-hour day. @Vanamonde93: you think YOU'RE confused about the resetting stuff? Unfortunately, I haven't seen written instructions anywhere. Here's my big blooper on doing this: In response to this Feb 19 thread, not knowing - nor having seen any instructions that it had to be within a set number of hours - I made this change. The result was an immediate rotation of the hooks, several hours too soon. And although I had emailed some veteran admins for advice on correcting the situation, no responses were ever forthcoming. BlueMoonset is the first one to ever explain this, to my knowledge. I feel like we admins sit on the razor's edge on this, most of us uninformed about the details until this thread. All of us admins with the ability to mess it up by having to go on instinct rather than written instructions. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have zero idea how to do this other than to go back and see what someone else did the last time it happened, and even then I'd wonder if there were associated other required edits that I'd missed finding. If I'd been online last night when I was pinged, I would absolutely NEVER have felt confident in doing a simple revert of a single edit. --valereee (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now? September 18

@Yoninah, Maile66, BlueMoonset, and Gatoclass: and others: Should we go back to 24 now? There are about 50 "approved" hooks, and a lot of them are held for queries or clarifications, so the number of available ones to choose from is quite low. Not easy to come up with a varied set, not to mention there are concerns about hooks being in the wrong timezone (e.g. U.S hooks during U.S. night time). HaEr48 (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After not finding much to build a varied set from, I went back to WP:DYKN and did a bunch of reviews. I think that's what needs to be done now. I don't worry about timezones anymore. Yoninah (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three days ago we had 48 approved nominations, and a day or so after that, it became 65 approved nominations. This is what I see right now:
  • 155 nominations, of which 53 are approved and waiting for promotion
  • 46 promoted hooks in prep and queue
So, we are dealing with a total of 201 nominations not yet on the main page. That would be 25 sets, if all were approved. Either 12-1/2 days of hooks at twice a day, or 25 days of hooks at once a day. My change back to 24 hours on Sept 15 lasted three hours before my change was reverted. So, I'm going to defer to others on whether or not the change should happen. — Maile (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Yoninah says, shrinking the number of unreviewed nominations by doing some extra reviewing is a most helpful undertaking. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66:@BlueMoonset: I've reviewed 7 or more bio nominations over the last few days, but we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to build prep sets now. We are down to 45 approved out of 147 nominations. Yoninah (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need reviewing done, but let's not make the prep builders the ones who get squeezed. With only 45 approved to work with, it's hard to build a balanced set. Building a prep involves basically doing 8 mini-reviews; it's not fair to them to have to also go do full original reviews to keep their pool large enough to build a balanced set from.
On a related note, I find 12-hours sets just discouraging all around. I'm not sure clearing a backlog is a worthy enough goal for what's now been six weeks of it. I'd rather see us do a backlog drive like GA is doing now, maybe in January when everyone's got time to breathe after the holidays? --valereee (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, Vanamonde93, Casliber, and Amakuru: We need more people on this conversation. As mentioned above, I'm abstaining from this thread, because when I reset it back to 1 set per 24 hours, it was objected to and reverted within hours. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I built another prep set. Now it's 144 nominations, 41 approved. Yoninah (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 makes a good case to switch back to 24 hours for a bit, especially if prep builders are struggling to balance sets...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the evidence myself, but from the comments above I think it would now be sensible to go back to one every 24 hours. Maile was probably correct to do so previously, and shouldn't have been reverted. It's great that prep-builders are stepping up to perform extra reviews, but it shouldn't really be incumbent on them to do all the work in that arena. How come the QPQ people aren't fulfilling the required numbers of reviewers?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, I think they are, it's just that there is a steady supply of new DYK nominators who can submit five noms before they need to do a QPQ. Which I think is reasonable; until they've been through DYK reviews themselves several times it's not fair to expect them to know how to do one competently, and incompetent reviews don't help. But it does mean that over time a backlog accumulates. --valereee (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough that makes sense. So in the long term we are always reliant on good samaritans who do reviews for reasons other than QPQ. And presumably they have been in shorter supply than usual recently.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When we started at two per day on August 12, there were 315 nominations, of which 133 were approved, or a difference of 182. As I type this, the difference is 104, so the good samaritans have been active over the past 38 days, taking care of 78 of those plus all of the new nominations where a QPQ wasn't needed. I'd like to thank them all for stepping up, and hope they'll be willing to continue working to narrow the gap in the weeks and months ahead. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that it's time we switched back - there are currently only 36 approved nominations excluding those in prep, and that isn't nearly enough to build balanced sets - and it's clear the rate of nomination approval is not going to keep up. I don't think it can be done right away though - if I'm not mistaken it will have to wait until the next set is promoted in about eight hours from now. I won't be online at that time though so somebody else will have to do it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I should be around to make the switch after 00:00 UTC on the 21st. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me too. Thanks, Vanamonde. As Gatoclass notes, at this point, we definitely need to wait until after the 00:00 UTC bot promotion of Queue 5 to the main page), at which point the changeover can be made. If someone isn't around until 01:00 or even 06:00, that's fine, too; the change doesn't need to be made immediately. After the promotion, we'll have at least four full days of pre-prepared sets and a need for only one new set a day, so it appears, from a scan of the approved noms (37 at last count, which will rise) that we can manage reasonably balanced sets going forward, since we'll only need one a day, and the level of approved noms is likely to rise over time. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset and Vanamonde93: For some reason Queue 5 did not get promoted at 00:00 UTC, was the switch mistimed somehow? HaEr48 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the bot failed to run. Shubinator has been pinged, but pinging them again, just in case they miss the one at ERRORS. I have also changed the time back to 86400, meaning we're back to one set a day. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're very lucky you were available when the bot promotion was supposed to happen, Vanamonde, so you could do it manually and then make the change back to one set a day. Thank you very much. The bot that adds the new day to the nominations page was also down; I've done a manual update there and notified that bot owner. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 1 special occasion request

I have submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Bibi Torriani for an October 1 special occasion request. I apologize for less than two week's notice. Thank you for consideration. Flibirigit (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: I've started a preliminary review, please respond at the discussion, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit: after Narutolovehinata5 completed the review, I moved it to the October 1 holding area for you. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

Template:Did you know nominations/Aristide Blank

  • ... that a court in communist Romania found banker Aristide Blank guilty of high treason, based on his meetings with foreigners and notes from Blank's unpublished novel?

Biruitorul Dahn

I see Blank himself was eventually singled out for retribution after having maintained contacts with British and American diplomats without a source, Blank himself was arrested as a spy on April 18, 1952, and put on trial for high treason, then sentenced to a 20-year imprisonment in May 1953 with a source, and Blank's defense team was able to show that his conversations with foreigners were not covered by the Penal Code, and that papers found in his home were actually the early drafts of a novel with a source, but I'm not seeing anything that seems to say that it was the meetings with foreigner and the notes from the novel that were the basis for his treason conviction? It seems like his lawyer was arguing that these things shouldn't have been considered, which seems to imply that they had been, but I can't find it explicitly stated that they were. Apologies if I'm just not finding it, it's a long article and I can't read the sources to try to fix it myself. --valereee (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read one another phrase or so, you ll see that Blank had his sentence overturned after this appeal, and was found guilty of a lesser crime. Dahn (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, yes, I saw that -- but I'm not seeing it stated that he was found guilty of high treason based on his meetings with foreigners and notes from his novel? --valereee (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If these were used as evidence, and, after being contested on appeal, his sentence was switched to a lesser one... Dahn (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, yes, I get that's what the current wording implies, but for DYK we need to see it explicitly stated with a source. Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm only trying to prevent this from being objected to and pulled once it hits the main page. That's when DYK hooks tend to get closely scrutinized, and I like to do my best to prevent a hook from possibly being pulled a few hours after it appears. I'd like it to get its full 24 hours on the main page. I apologize if this seems like nitpicking; I'm on your side, here. --valereee (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I understand and appreciate your effort, and I do also understand what may be confusing for the reader here. The thing is, the text currently in the article is segmented, because, unlike the source, it needs to discuss events that occurred while Blank was serving time in jail -- i.e. before the appeal. The source makes it even more clear that the first conviction was based on such evidence, and that this is the reason why the appeal was accepted (as a side note: accepting an appeal was so unusual in context that I originally intended to base the hook on this fact). Here is the source (page 15):
A fost arestat la 18 aprilie 1952, pentru „activitate de spionaj în favoarea unor state imperialiste ostile RPR”, judecat de Tribunalul Militar Teritorial Bucureşti şi condamnat în primă instanţă la 20 de ani temniţă grea, pentru „crima de înaltă trădare” şi confiscarea averii personale (mai 1953), iar ulterior, la rejudecarea procesului, în urma admiterii recursului, la 3 ani închisoare corecţională, pentru „delictul contra siguranţei interioare a statului, prin schimbare de calificare din crima de trădare” (aprilie 1955). Apărarea a susţinut că discuţiile cu diplomaţi americani despre schimbările de guvern din anii 1944‑1946 sau cele cu privire la lichidarea Băncii Blank, care era o instituţie particulară, datele referitoare la despăgubirile de război ce se cuveneau acţionarilor americani la fabricile de hârtie de la Piatra Neamţ şi Petreşti şi însemnările personale cu caracter economic, politic şi militar, găsite la percheziţie, care erau material documentar pentru un roman pe care intenţiona să‑l scrie, nu erau date secrete, care să constituie infracţiunea de trădare prin divulgare de secrete, aşa cum era definită în Codul penal şi care se raporta doar la datele privind apărarea teritoriului, siguranţa statului sau mobilizarea economică a teritoriului naţional.
"He was arrested on 18 April 1952 for "spying in favor of imperialist states hostile to the people's republic", tried by the Territorial Military Tribunal in Bucharest, and sentenced by a first court to 20 years in high-security detention for the "crime of high treason", with the confiscation of his personal belongings (May 1953), and them upon retrial, after the appeal was accepted, to 3 years in a correctional facility, for "infringement of the state's internal safety, modified from the crime of treason" (April 1955). His defense was able to show that his discussions with American diplomats regarding government changes in 1944-1946, or those regarding the insolvency of his Blank Bank, a private institution, or data referring to war reparations that were owed to American stakeholder in the paper factories of Piatra Neamț and Petrești, like his personal notes on economic, political, military matters, as discovered during police searches, which were in fact documentation for a novel he intended to write, were not secret records, that would constitute the crime of treason through the disclosure of secrets, as defined by the Penal Code, as this only referred to records of territorial defense, state security, or economic mobilization on the nation's territory." Dahn (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, thank you for understanding, and for that translation. I see what you are saying; the translation doesn't say it explicitly but does make it clear to anyone who chooses to go looking for the support. I think the thing to do is put that translation into a note, then cite that note for the three sentences in my original question. Would that work for you? I think with that note attached to those sentences, it's less likely someone would challenge this hook. --valereee (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've attached that source to the sentences and added some verbiage to clarify. --valereee (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Sorry for not being able to respond earlier. I think the full translation would be overkill, especially as the source is cited with one single citation (and adding the translation would add a second citation for the same source, same page), but I take absolutely no issue with your edits, and thank you for them! Dahn (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, no worries on the response time, and thanks! --valereee (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prep promotions to queue needed

Maile, Valereee, Casliber, could you promote some preps to queues please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maile! Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woo! Hoo! All queues now filled. Here's a toast to whoever put all those DYK make credits in the same order as the hooks. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bird words

In Queue 2: ... that Patricia Swallow was vice president of the Royal Naval Bird Watching Society?

I like the Swallow/bird watching connection, but I think the hook could take it further. She joined the Wrens and served at the stone frigate Heron. A frigate may be a less familiar bird than swallows, wrens, and herons, but I think it would be interesting to include these bird words in the hook about a bird watcher. Dumelow, any thoughts? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • So something like this? I have added more citations to the article, so all the facts in a longer hook like this have their source cited at the end of the sentence.
ALT1 ... that Patricia Swallow commanded the WRENS, served at the stone frigate HMS Heron, and was vice president of the Royal Naval Bird Watching Society?
RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea Mandarax. I've tried a few alternatives and my favourite so far is:
ALT2: ... that Patricia Swallow led the Wrens, served on a Heron, and was vice president of the Royal Naval Bird Watching Society?
I am also happy for this to run with RebeccaGreen's suggested ALT (it should either be Wrens or WRNS though, not WRENS) or any similar option - Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)°′[reply]
Dumelow, there is a redirect from WRENS to Women's Royal Naval Service, which is why I used that form - but I'm not fussed about which abbreviation is used. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like Dumelow's snappier hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like it better too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maile or Valereee, could you please replace the last hook in Queue 2 with ALT2? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Maile (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​​ HMS Heron is an index page; the correct link should be RNAS Yeovilton (HMS Heron). Furthermore, it would be more accurate to say "the Heron", in reference to a specific one. I therefore think the hook should read "served on the Heron" instead. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Good catch on that one! — Maile (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Starrett City, Brooklyn

I realize this has been approved, but I forgot to credit Tdorante10 with this nomination as well. He worked on the article in his sandbox before it was nominated for DYK. Can someone add the appropriate credit? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the credit for Tdorante10 in queue. @Yoninah: I wasn't sure if I should add it to the closed nomination template or not. But Tdorante10 will receive the standard talk page credit when it runs on the main page. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maile: I don't think it matters. Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long from nomination to page?

I'm curious about how long the process usually takes. I've got a 9/14 DYK awaiting approval, and I kinda wanted to set expectations for myself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the nomination, how many active reviewers there are, and how fast things can go along. On average, I'd say that a review gets its first comments (not necessarily the review) within a week or so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got my comments, acted on them, and they list seems to have been cleaned up to 9/27. I'm a little worried that my DYK will end up forgotten. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Girl on the Third Floor? It's still on the Nominations page, and a comment was left by Feminist there a couple of days ago. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to that, yes. And I acted on Feminist's suggestions. At least one of which I cannot act on until its general release. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations remain on that page until either they are approved or are rejected, so even if it will take weeks or even months it won't necessarily be "forgotten" or disappear. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, Narutolovehinata5. I was unaware of the size of the backlog. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the backlog is quite short at the moment as it has largely been cleared by promoting two sets of hooks a day to the main page for several weeks. We are now back to one set a day, which will give your hook longer exposure when it gets there! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for references to be added to the Release section, which hasn't been done. feminist (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist Because it hasn't been widely released yet, there is not going to be a lot of info about it. I've added individual links for the film fest premieres.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't part of the point of DYK to bring lots of eyes to the article? More eyes, mean more expansion and development. It isn't as if I am submitting a new article for GA certification. I asked you to weigh in on the DYK nom to approve the hook for mainspace. Was there something wrong with the hook or the source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's nothing wrong with the hook or its source. However, the issue with citations for the Release section was also noted by Raymie, the previous reviewer, as well. feminist (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sebastian It looks like the release date is less than a month away; you could request that it be scheduled on its release date, which might be kind of cool? --valereee (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee If I submitted it then, the article would no longer be eligible for DYK submission. At the time of submission, the article was new from a link to the actor and expanded 5x.
Jack Sebastian I think you misunderstood. When you open a nomination, you can request a Special Date for it to be on the main page. Current standards are that you can submit a nomination 6 weeks ahead of a requested appearance date. I've put a note on the nomination template to request that date for you. Hope I understood everybody on that. If that is not OK with you, just note on the nomination template that you disaagree with the request. — Maile (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 Yep, I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying the process for me. It is totally okay with me. I've noted such on the nom request. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist I've added references for the release section. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Sebastian: The nomination has been approved, and has been moved to a special holding date for October 25. — Maile (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, Maile66. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/J. Michael Mendel

I know queues and preps are pretty full but it would be nice to have J. Michael Mendel on the Main Page while the news of his death is still fresh. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Slotted into Prep 5 to run on October 3. Yoninah (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The recent run of twice-daily sets was so successful in reducing the backlog of unpromoted nominations that there are many fewer than usual non-current nominations that need reviewing. There are only six such nominations through September 21, all listed below. We have a total of 124 nominations, of which 59 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Include FLs in rule 1F

I propose modifying Rule 1F to allow recently designated Featured lists to appear as DYKs. There is no Good article process for Lists, so the FL process serves the same function as the GA process does for regular articles. Allowing new GAs to be eligible for DYK encourages the improvement of articles, so the same incentive should be available for improving the quality of lists. The main constraint is ensuring that the hook is cited and interesting, which our DYK reviewers are surely capable of handling. Ergo Sum 19:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with FL these days? We just had this similar discussion in July:1 GA was only included some years ago, because it was not elsewhere found on the Main Page. FL is already featured on the main page, and has its own nominating process. — Maile (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that discussion was primarily concerned with FAs. I specifically mention FLs because, unlike FAs, there is no intermediate step of GA for them. I thought I'd just throw this out there as a consideration. Ergo Sum 19:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:TFL for the place to get a Featured List on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with TFL. That's not what this discussion is about. Ergo Sum 19:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very relevant to me. The reason GA was included in DYK was because there was no other place for them on the main page. If there's already a place for getting featured lists onto the main page, then we don't need to use DYK to create a place for getting them onto the main page. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo Sum, is your question that an article that goes to GA and FA might have two bites at the apple (on the main page as a DYK at GA and then again when it becomes a FA) while a list has just the one? Are you thinking we need a 'good list' process? --valereee (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on while I overthink this...

I was wondering if there would be any benefit to others moving preps > queues if we signaled which of the preps we've moved we've actually been able to or are planning to thoroughly check. I have time to check a set thoroughly about every third day, but sometimes I'm moving multiple preps to queue in a single day to make room for prep setters to work, so I'm often moving sets that I am not doing a damn thing to check. And of course no one else would know that. And then when I do check a set thoroughly, the only way anyone else would generally know is if I found multiple problem I couldn't fix myself and brought them here, or if they started checking that set themselves and found I'd made edits on many of the articles. But it's kind of a waste of time for a set to get two checks when there are likely sets going completely without their final check. I was thinking instead of opening a section here when we find a problem that needs to be dealt with here, maybe we could open placeholder sections when we move sets, post in that section if we can "claim" them, and they could just stay empty if nothing's found but would let others know that set had actually was receiving the final admin check. And sets that don't get claimed would be visible so that at minimum everyone would know that, hey, this one never got its final check and it goes live in twelve hours. Pinging the folks currently moving sets: Maile66 Casliber Amakuru Vanamonde93 but anyone interested please chime in. --valereee (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Also pinging @Yoninah: @Cwmhiraeth: and @BlueMoonset:. It's EVERYBODY's responsibility to check. The promoter who moves a hook to Prep, anybody who moves hooks around, either in Prep or from Prep to Queue. More eyes still checking hooks while they're in Queue. Where do you get this idea that "there are likely sets going completely without their final check"? That doesn't say much for the rest of us, does it? If this is getting too much for you personally, then leave it for the rest of us. Make things too complicated, and everybody abandons ship.
Everybody catches something different, and no catches doesn't mean there were no checks. Stuff happens, human beings miss stuff. If anyone ever calculated a percentage of how many errors (not stylistic issues) make it to the main page, it would be a pretty teeny tiny percentage of the thousands of hooks. You're making this too complicated. Prep builders have the same responsibility as the admins. Are you suggesting that we hold up an entire set just because one hook has an issue? In an ideal world, hooks should be error-free the moment they're promoted. Mistakes happen, we fix them, and we move on. One hook at a time. One thing we don't need is more hoops to jump through for anyone who helps in the process. — Maile (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, @Valereee: I would also like to commend you for the invaluable service you provide here. The project has benefited from your diligence. Don't mean to sound too uppity above, but there is no way to measure how many checks are/are not done, since most only mention having done so when there is an error. Is there enough checking? Depends on POV. Could there be more? Sure. But if we hold up the process by adding another check step, the process will suffer. Since the checks are already done rather anonymously, we'll never know who threw in the towel and moved their services to other areas of Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, I guess it's clear I wasn't communicating what I was trying to communicate. The final check I meant was just all the stuff at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions, which takes me a couple of hours to do for a set. I was not in any way intending to imply I thought anything was being moved along without being checked by multiple people; just that I'd taken these instructions as what I should be doing every time I move a set to queue, and that I've not been doing for every set I've moved. I wasn't suggesting adding an additional check at all, just finding some way to communicate that a check had been done. The other checks inherently contain such a signal. The reviewer has to give it a check, the promoter gives the signal by promoting. But I move preps to queues often when I haven't done (and won't have time to do) the check I'm supposed to be doing. But no one knows I've not done the check I'm supposed to do. --valereee (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, as far as I know, you're the only one who mentions you did a full/final check. Personally, I've just been checking on instinct, you might say. Having been around here for a few years, various things set off a signal to me. You are to be congratulated for always going through that list. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: +1 from me in thanking you for the diligent effort you've been putting into going through the hooks. It certainly helps, and you don't need to be sorry for raising the above question - I viewed it as a clarification of process rather than a criticism of anybody. I would also echo what Maile says - when I promote hook sets I look them over for any obvious errors, or things which look like they might contains something iffy. But I don't do a thorough check and I definitely don't spend two hours on it! I won't pretend it's a perfect process, but we're limited by our resources, and between the nominator, reviewer, the promoter, and admin queue-filler, plus TRM casting an eye on things at his ERRORS2 page, the majority of problems do get ironed out at some point in the trail without any one individual needing to be responsible for thoroughly checking everything. If you have the time to check every hook in depth, and enjoy doing that, then great, but don't feel like you have to do it if it's becoming burdensome. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite understand Valereee's concern; despite our revamped instructions for administrators, there is considerable variation in the checks admins perform. Amakuru, we are required to thoroughly check the hooks, as outlined here; if you want to trust TRM to do that for you, that's fine, but you're responsible for the outcome, as are any other admins who promote preps to queues. I typically take an hour or so to promote a prep set; I don't often have the time to perform additional checks on sets promoted by others. If that's something we're looking into doing, and we're looking for a way to communicate that, a hidden comment in the queue should work well; but the trouble is that an admin saying "I have done an additional check" is useful, but an admin saying "I haven't checked the set I promoted" is saying "I have ignored the admin instructions", and so communicating that would be...strange. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I add to your comment. I like to save a little time on the promotion from prep to queue set, by checking hooks while they are still in prep. Not all the sets, but usually the top couple of sets. Not everybody has time to thoroughly pour through 8 hooks before a last-minute promotion (as is sometimes the case). Different strokes for different folks. But I like to examine the hooks before queue becomes an option. And since nobody always catches everything, I'm very pleased that Valereee takes her job seriously. Hooks where the sources are not in English have to be AGF with me as I look at the article, and hopefully were thoroughly examined before I saw them. Nobody is expert on everything. — Maile (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly appreciate Valereee's vigilance, and I have no problems with checking things in prep. I also have no problems with anyone performing "extra" checks; that can only be a good thing. I do think, though, that promoting a set late is better than promoting it unchecked; promoting it without checking because you don't have the time is running contrary to our admin instructions, and therefore is arguably a violation of ADMINACCT; and that promoting a set assuming someone else is going to check it for you doesn't release you from expectations under ADMINACCT. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have misunderstood. I didn't say I promote unchecked sets. I said I check a lot of the hooks while still in prep. Some a day, or two, or more, ahead of the set making it up the line to queue. But, hey, if you or anybody else thinks I'm not checking, then I'm happy to step aside and let the other admins promote to queue. My time on Wikipedia these days is very limited - and likely to be so for the near future - so I have no issue ceding the prep to queue promotion to all the other admins. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3: Military Intelligence Corps Band

TRM has raised a query about the phrase "At the time of the band's inactivation, it was authorized 37 personnel and consisted of a ceremonial band" in this article. @Chetsford: please could you copyedit so this makes sense, before the DYK goes live? I can't access either of the two sources,[1][2] as they've been disabled for European viewers, so don't know what it's supposed to say myself. Also there are a couple of WP:Bare URLs which should be filled in. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, what is the query about the phrase regarding? Another editor added the sources reflected in the bare URLs, one of which doesn't seem to load for me, but I'll try to track down the information about it to fill in. Chetsford (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: the query is regarding the meaning of "it was authorized 37 personnel". The sentence doesn't quite scan to me. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I'm not entirely following. Could you be more specific about what doesn't make sense? I apologize that I'm not understanding. Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means "was allowed to have", but the wording looks really odd to this English reader. "had" might do as well. And reading its article, it also included a jazz band. So would "At the time of the band's inactivation, it had 37 personnel and consisted of a ceremonial band and a jazz group" be better? Bazza (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"At the time of the band's inactivation, it had 37 personnel..." The problem is that the source doesn't support the statement that it had 37 personnel at the time of its inactivation, only that it was authorized 37 personnel. A unit could be authorized 20,000 personnel but only have seven (see Provisional Army of the United States). Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an WP:ENGVAR thing then, although it's difficult to say why it just looks weird (whereas "authorized to have (up to) 37 personnel..." is fine). Bazza (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for goodness sakes. It's been fixed. They had 37. They ended up with an estimated 27. Please do not reply to my post. Please do not ping me about this. Sigh ... — Maile (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to reply, however, I think the way the commas have been arranged in the revised version now seems to suggest the Military Intelligence Corps Band was named "Cannonball Combo" instead of only its chamber jazz group having that name. In other words "and consisting of a ceremonial band and a chamber jazz group known as the Cannonball Combo" has now become a parenthetical expression causing the subjects of the first and third sections of the sentence to be linked together. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "up to" might be a workaround, however, in my mind that suggests it is the maximum possible number allowed, whereas situations can arise where a unit is assigned more personnel than it's authorized. Chetsford (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru: I have a great deal of respect for you. But your friend is restricted by Arbcom from posting to this talk page. Having you quote his opinion here, amounts to the same thing as helping him evade the Arbcom ruling by proxy. You are free to ask for clarification from Arbcom if you so wish. — Maile (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=918900887"