Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)


"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS


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

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook

There is currently a discussion in Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream about a suitable hook for this nomination. The C of E, who nominated it, prefers his original hook, which uses "Nigger" and variants thereof three times, and in bold text; TonyTheTiger didn't see anything wrong with it. Both original reviewer Owlsmcgee and myself have proposed alternatives, neither of which have satisfied The C of E, though I disagree with him on whether ALT1, which I proposed and eschews the word, is hooky enough for DYK. The competing merits of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, and WP:Offensive material have been advanced, and an ALT2 has been proposed if the original hook is not approved.

I thought it made sense to bring this before the entire DYK community now for consensus in this case, rather than have it come here after much back and forth, as seems almost inevitable. Thank you for your comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no hook without using the names of the places. Natureium (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me clarify. It is not that I don't see anything wrong with it. I believe that there have been precedents set in the past for the "N" word appearing on the main page. The use here is for the purpose of engaging the main page viewers' attention, which is the goal of the DYK hook. Given that we have permitted all kinds of offensive topics on the main page, I find the suggested use of the N word no different whether it be once or thrice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we're asking the wrong question here. We're not bothered about whether something is offensive; NOTCENSORED covers that. The question is whether we are departing from neutral encyclopedic language to enhance understanding of the topic, or for some other reason. In this case, I think the use of the N-word contributes substantively to understanding the topic, which is about historical racism. I'm less sure about the original hook as it stands, because while repeating the N-word thrice makes the hook hookier, it does so via shock value, which in my mind is not an appropriate goal. So I'd be okay with, for instance, ALT2 proposed by the nominator, which is explicit about the issue, but does not repeat the word thrice to jar the reader into clicking on it. Just my 2c, feel free to ignore me. Vanamonde (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I actually think the proposed alt which doesn't explicitly mention the N-word is "hookier". Giving the old names might already tell the casual reader everything they want to know, but giving only the new names and the reason for the renaming will encourage people to click on the articles to find out if the offensive word is in fact the one they expect. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I realise that some may find the original rather strong, which is why I proposed ALT2 which tones it down a lot but still keeps the crux of the original hook by explicitly stating what the word was instead of the vague language of proposed alt1. The thing is, if these were written a year ago or if I had done them one at a time as individual nominations, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
No, we would have been having a conversation about that hook if you'd proposed it with the same wording a year ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED is not a suicide pact. This is a terrible idea, and no matter the intent, will come across as a childish attempt to repeat a slur. bd2412 T 01:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The proposed hook will unnecessarily offend people without an offsetting encyclopedic purpose, risks adverse publicity bringing the project into disrepute, and should not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Is there a way to produce a list of previous hooks that used the N word? I think I recall some sort of book or manual and maybe another use or two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Run, Nigger, Run ran as such on DYK, so there is precident. Not to mention all the other swear words we've used as hooks before. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Except the song hook a) used the word once, in the clearly-marked title, b) was not about something that has been retitled, and c) was not about something that had raised controversy for its title.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose this nonsense. Come on, people. I would support if these were the actual names of the articles, but they are not, so there's no legitimate or encyclopedic reason to put them on the front page. The principle of least astonishment should apply here. Some people's desire for an exciting, attention getting, titillating hook is not sufficient. The n-word should not be employed to grab the reader's attention, that's crass and tacky. ALT1 provides sufficient information for a summary, and the articles can provide more information. Gamaliel (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

They were the original names and we have run hooks before which have included the original names for things. This is no different to then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I also advise that the proposed hook not be used. Above all else, it's tacky. Any encyclopedic benefit that it brings over ALT1 is marginal, and it does risk bringing the project into disrepute. Per Wikipedia:Offensive material, let's follow the principle of "least astonishment". Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, and that's reflected by the fact that we include the former names in their respective articles for completeness. NOTCENSORED is not, however, a free pass to use a route we know will offend readers when we know there's a perfectly good alternative that wouldn't. Mz7 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree that this should not be used. It displays an eagerness to repeat a slur, to offend for no good reason. SarahSV (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I also agree that ALT1 is more hooky, intrigues the reader to find out what the actual context is, which is beyond the slur itself. Putting too much emphasis on the slur is hardly neutral. Alex ShihTalk 06:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am with Alex for ALT1, besides even if the first proposed hook were marginally encyclopedic, which it is not, ALT1 would still be a preferred suitable alternative per WP:GFFENSE. Moreover nothing in NOTCENSORED or DYK rules require us to run the first proposed hook, as that would be forced speech, the antithesis of free speech -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't there a suggestion once for a variant main page on which 'good articles which may cause discomfort or more' (very medical, the G....ec..t Lane entry, terms now considered offensive) can be posted (ie people #actively choose# to go there)? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
People "actively choose" to come here. If they do so under the mistaken impression that this is some sort of "sunshine, unicorns, and rainbows" happy town where nothing is ever upsetting is not our concern. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems hardly worth it. We have one page, where we decide to waste this time putting it together, that's enough - we don't need more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: As much as I despise racism, I'm genuinely disturbed by the amount of rationalizations for censorship that I'm seeing here. Abyssal (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • If the proposal was to remove the offensive term from the article, that would be censorship. These are rationalizations for good editing. bd2412 T 19:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is actually more hooky than the original, regardless of any NOTCENSORED nonsense. Do we need to assume that our readers need to be spoonfed? No, we want them to investigate our articles. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed. bd2412 T 20:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is definitely preferable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a breeching experiment and no more, and as such, deserves no reason to be on the main page. Censorship doesn't come into play here, the intent is to get away with as much as one can, without regard for one's target audience. For that reason, it shouldn't be done. This is self-evidently "let's see how much we can get away with". If one knows the likely outcome of an action, and proceeds anyways, one desired that outcome as the primary motive. Since it is evident that the outcome is expected, the motive is that outcome, and where the motive is to shock, the use of the word is not encyclopedic. --Jayron32 11:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Not true. It was three intertwined areas with interesting names that I thought would work well if they ran as one. I chose the former names as I thought they made the hook more hooky in accordance with DYK rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I support ALT1. It serves as a disclaimer for itself without censoring the underlying content. Additionally (while the decision should not rest on this consideration), I imagine that DYK generators scrape Wikipedia DYK for content, and many of those scrapers may be intended to be strictly family-friendly (again, do not let that consideration determine our decision, because that is the fault of the developer for expecting an uncensored site to produce strictly "family-friendly" content). Gmarmstrong (talk)
  • I strongly prefer ALT1, and find the original to be in very poor taste. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that all three articles are currently at AfD, this nomination can't be used at all at the moment anyway. Indeed, if the discussions go as they are at the moment, all three are likely to be merged, so this won't be running. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

While Wikipedia itself is not censored (but sets criteria for notability etc) slightly different criteria will apply to the main page - some topics do make people feel uncomfortable in a school/workspace/public library etc context/while they are having 'drink and crumbly biscuit breaks.'

There are a number of articles which reach the criteria for appearing on the main page but which fall into the above categories: the question is how to reconcile 'examples of WP good practice' with 'what viewers do not wish to be seen reading in public contexts' (and some may make them feel uncomfortable in all contexts).

Attitudes change - use of the n word is now seen in a negative light (but the persons who became 'Viking berserkers' or 'involved religious enthusiasts' would now be seen negatively)

The question is actually - how should these aspects be reconciled? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Special occasion hook for November 11

Template:Did you know nominations/Liliuokalani for November 11 (100th date of the Queen's death) is in mid-review, nominated by @Mark Miller and KAVEBEAR: and me. @Gerda Arendt: is doing a review, but I think she would like a different kind of hook. I would be happy with whatever my two co-nominators agreed on for a hook. But please feel free to offer other hooks on the template. The article is also currently undergoing FAC. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

More precisely: I'd prefer a hook about her life, not death, - anybody welcome. We have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Though technically 11 November is Remembrance Day in the Commonwealth so it wouldn't be too out of place to have a hook involving death. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against memory that day, and' I'd even approve the proposed hook about the ceremony when she died, but would prefer a hook that said something about a great woman's life, or position, or whatever, - just not the only thing we say about her is that she died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Along the lines of what The C of E posted above, November 11 is also Veterans Day in the United States, an official federal holiday with a lot of ceremony. I understand what you're saying @Gerda Arendt:, and I'm open to a different hook if one comes up. But if we don't mention in the hook that it's 100 years from that date, how would the reader know we're commemorating that event? A centennial commemoration of anything is a big deal. — Maile (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you want to interest the reader in the person, or do you want the reader to know that you have a specific reason to do so? - You could still say that L, who died 100 years ago, did so-and-so. I prefer to celebrate birthdays ;) - also say a third time that I can approve a hook that says nothing about her personality if you so wish. - Getting ready for 500 years (of the Reformation) you may want to take a look at Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm not ignoring your comment above. It's just that nothing comes to mind. That's why I asked here for others to suggest hooks. It's mighty quiet around DYK these days. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
We still have plenty of time, while my idea for October 17 was approved too late, or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
You are a person of infinite patience. I can focus on something simple like her date of death, or other dates. But my head is so saturated with the history of Hawaii and multiple articles I've created/edited that all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle ... that coming up with something simple isn't working for me here. And we don't want the obvious that the general populace would already know, like she was the last monarch, she was the one who was in power when the kingdom was overthrown, etc. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Old DYK cleanup issue

Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign is still listed in Category:Pending DYK nominations, although it is not pending as the article was deleted (redirected) in April 2017. I believe it should be changed to Category:Failed DYK nominations from April 2017. MB 02:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've closed it as "rejected", which has changed the category as that's part of closing a DYK nomination template. (It was March 2017, not April 2017.) The nomination should have been closed at the time of the merge/redirect/delete/whatever, but for some reason wasn't. Interesting that this should show up as another article by the same editor is at AfD after a controversial nomination here. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Untranscluded nominations

There are a number of nominations in the Pending DYK nominations category that were created by students as part of a college course this past spring: these are ones where the newness requirements were met, but the nomination was never transcluded on the DYK Nominations page as required. In the past, we have allowed DYK editors to take these on, fix up the hooks and the articles, and complete the nomination process, listing them under the date the nomination was finally transcluded (but noting the history on the nomination template). Since the class ended in May, the editors have long since vanished. The hooks are usually misformatted. Here are the templates and a brief explanation of where they stand:

  • Template:Did you know nominations/Bonesetter: expanded in March 2017 (nominator hasn't edited since the end of that month), article has a verification template on it that was placed in January 2013 but there have been improvements since and it might be good enough for DYK if the expansion took care of the issue; was 708 prose characters prior to expansion and 3751 by March 10 (5x expansion), the date the nomination template was created Added refs and re-nominated. Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Template:Did you know nominations/William Smellie (obstetrician): nomination created March 12 and was 5x expanded; valid hook would be needed, plus source for Legacy section; last WP edit by either of the two creators was August 24 Fixed up and renominated. Yoninah (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Holmesburg Prison: nomination created April 21 and was 5x expanded by two editors; last WP edit by either was May 6. (Note: This article is citing a 1998 book which is not available in Google Preview. I noted on the talk page a 2013 edition which may need to be consulted for page numbers. I formatted the refs, but that's all I'm doing for this. I think it needs a lot of fact-checking against the sources.) Yoninah (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Big-fish-little-pond effect: nomination created April 27 and was 5x expanded; last WP edit by creator was May 2 I'm adopting this one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Template:Did you know nominations/Mouse Embryonic Fibroblast: nomination opened July 25 for newly created 1656-character article; article last edited August 14, nominator has about half a dozen edits since then, the latest September 27. Template will need to be edited to reflect correct article name

If you take one of these on, please strike it from the above list. Any that are still unclaimed at the end of October will be deleted. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Edward P. Evans Hall

Hi. Would anyone like to nominate Edward P. Evans Hall for DYK please?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Hi, as a registered user, you're also invited to nominate your own article for DYK! I took a look at the article and see that it is still stub-class. I removed an unnecessary quote describing the nuts and bolts of the building, so it needs more text and description from independent sources to bring it up to start-class, when it can be nominated for DYK. Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Zigzig20s has well over five DYK credits, and would have to provide a quid pro quo review if nominating their own article. The last couple of times someone else did the nomination for them; I haven't checked back any further. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK's should be viewable from Mobiles too

Currently, Mobile view of Wikipedia's Main Page doesn't show the Did you know section. I think this should be shown as a large number of readers visit Wikipedia from mobiles and tablets, I-pads etc and DYK's aren't being exposed to them. Also, some topics may share interests with mobile readers, like an Apple smartphone hook, which recieves less views on Computers but more from Mobiles and Tablets. What do you guys think about this ? Request a passing administrator to implement this if enough users agree. 31.215.114.79 (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've copied this message over to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — Maile (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Anonimo Gaddiano

I'm not very happy about this being closed as "ineligible" by a rather new reviewer. It was effectively all written within 5 days, but I was busy and there was a delay in nominating it, making it late by 2 days if treated as new, or if treated as an expansion of the first start, by 1 day. I noted the problem when submitting on October 4th; the reviewer added a "comment" within 15 minutes confirming the dates. We tend to be lenient in such cases in my experience.

Unfortunately the co-nom, who had started the article by translating the Italian WP version, has not been very happy with my expanding and correcting his original piece, and then raised some wholly spurious points, which had already been dealt with at article talk. Reviewers understandably kept away while this was going on, but by the 18th, with nothing new for 10 days, I assumed it was all over, and added a note to say so. The co-nom then popped up again, repeating points already dealt with. I pointed this out to him. The editor who had commented then returned after 14 days, and closed the nom 16 minutes after my comment to the co-nom. I can't help thinking this has more to do with getting the lengthening discussion off the page than the actual timing issue. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Without having looked at the article in detail, I agree that this nomination should not be rejected on date of nomination grounds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Now I see why the article was bulked up in such haste. Wikipedia Careerism. Interesting. Perhaps there's some room here for policy revision. Rome was not built in a day, it is often said, and neither is responsible history built in five. Even God took seven.
Going forward, I will look at Wikipedia's DYK listings in a new light. Fb2ts (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
7 days is indeed what the rules allow, but the expansion was effectively done in 5. The nom has been reactivated; many thanks for the comments there and above! Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about DYK-nominated articles that were deleted

If for example an article that was a DYK nominee was deleted (thus meaning the nomination failed), then was later recreated, is it allowed to renominate the recreated article for DYK, or is this prohibited? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason why an article that was unsuccessful at the first attempt at DYK should not be nominated again. This sometimes happens when an article is too small the first time round, and goes on to qualify as a newly promoted GA. Or such an article might qualify if it later had a five-fold expansion. If you tell us what article you are referring to, we can advise you as to whether it is likely to qualify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: In this case, it would be Minori Suzuki. I originally created the article last year, nominated it for DYK, it was approved, and while waiting to be prepped, it was nominated for deletion. The result of the deletion discussion (after I made a suggestion there) was for it to be userfied to my userspace. A deletion review this March did not result in a consensus to recreate the article, but a second deletion review this month permitted the page to be recreated. As such, earlier today, I moved it back to the namespace.
My question is: would me moving the article back to the mainspace today count under the "moved to mainspace" criterion of DYK, or as the article was originally created last year but was removed from mainspace, it no longer counts? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would qualify. It failed first time for a technical reason and should be given a second chance in my opinion. We'll see if anybody else has a view on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it would, we do have precidence for it happening with London Irish Amateur where something similar happened. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

31 October

I am surprised that a thread concerning Halloween was already archived. This year, the day marks 500 years of the Reformation. How many hooks that day for Halloween, how many for Reformation? I hope that Template:Did you know nominations/Gott sei gelobet und gebenedeiet can be the lead hook that day. Article and hook, by the example of a hymn, summarize that the Reformation took a lot from the tradition, and that its achievements arrived in the Catholic church. I will start an article today which I think will grow to my suggestion #2, Sonne der Gerechtigkeit, about the sun of justice rising in our time, also a hymn which was written centuries ago but is relevant today. What do others think and offer?

I have two suggestions with an image, which I hope can be shown before rather than after the "birthday", because the day will more or less complete the year of celebrations: Template:Did you know nominations/Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende (unless you prefer the image of a woman to another one of Luther) and Template:Did you know nominations/Ach, lieben Christen, seid getrost. Suggestion without image: Template:Did you know nominations/Es spricht der Unweisen Mund wohl, two more articles are written but not yet nominated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I also have Template:Did you know nominations/Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above for that date with a suggestion of using Martin Luther as the picture. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of 31 October, if you want something other than Halloween and Reformation, I could offer Template:Did you know nominations/Ines Rau, seeing as 31 October is the day the Playboy featuring her goes on sale. Regards SoWhy 06:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WugBot update

Important bits are in bold; if you read nothing else, read those. If you're a close watcher of the edit history, you may soon notice some changes to WugBot's edit summary which is reflective of some major changes to the code. For those who don't know or don't remember, WugBot moves approved nominations to the approved page (and currently removes closed nominations, more on that in a bit).

Firstly, the code has largely been rewritten and while I've been testing the current version, I can't catch every bug before it goes live so, as always, if the bot is doing something it should not be, please leave me a message on my talk page or email me. I don't edit much at the moment, but I'm still around and respond to both readily.

Secondly, SoWhy on my talk page pointed out that WugBot's edit conflict handling recently did not work. I've tried to fix that, but for a number of reasons (most obviously the difficulty of actually making edit conflicts to test the code), can't guarantee there won't be future errors like this. That said, I've taken steps to reduce the likelihood of it happening, most importantly I've cut the time between checking for conflicts and writing the page down from about 30 seconds in v0.8.3 (the previous version that ran on the nom page) to below 5 seconds in the current v0.11.0 (sometimes under 1 second, if pywikibot doesn't throttle the request). The important takeaway, if you make an edit within one minute of WugBot (it runs every odd-numbered hour), double check to make sure nothing got messed up. That someone edits the page in the four seconds WugBot is writing the page is unlikely (it seems to have only happened once in almost a year), but something to be aware of. I'll continue trying to cut down that time and look into improving it.

Thirdly, this new rewrite adds an option for the bot to leave or remove closed nominations (see an example here and here). So far the bot has been removing closed nominations, mostly because the old code wasn't written in a way that would allow for closed nominations to be left on the page. Closed nominations are rare, and so the bot removing them is rare, but this was, and may still be, a point of contention on how the bot should operate, and now that the code works and allows for both, I think a discussion would be productive: essentially, should the bot remove closed nominations or leave them for a human to remove? I've set the current version to continue the status quo, but if there's consensus for changing that it can easily be done.

Anyway, you should notice almost no difference between how this new version and the old version function, but know that there have been major back end changes so if you notice something that seems to be a bug please do not hesitate to let me know. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  • An inauspicious start. The bot is down for the time being and hopefully will be up in the next few hours. If not, I'll restart the previous version while I sort out why it deleted 4kb of noms. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Update: I've tracked down the location the problem occurs in the code, but have yet to figure out how to solve it. In the mean time, I've set it back to 0.8.3 and hopefully can get it fixed with some more sleep. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
If you are talking about the bot removing nominations marked with the symbol Symbol delete vote.svg, I think that should be a decision left to humans. Anybody could add this to a nomination, perhaps because they intended to use Symbol possible vote.svg. Human discretion is needed to see whether there really are unsurmountable problems with the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
If you talk about noms returned from prep, I think they should go back to the "awaiting" area, to be seen, but don't know if by bot or human. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, Gerda Arendt, I'm sure that Wugapodes is talking about the bot removing nominations that have been closed after being approved or rejected—that is, the DYKsubpage template has been substituted as part of either a promotion to prep or a final rejection. WugBot is only supposed to remove nominations once they've closed; it moves ticked nominations (that is, ones where the latest nomination is a tick) from the nominations page to the approved nomination page, but doesn't do anything specific with other icons. I'm not quite sure why Wugapodes says this is rare, because eight noms are closed as part of building an eight-hook prep set; it's the nominations that are rejected that are comparatively rare. As for noms removed from prep, it is currently up to the person pulling the nom to add it back to the nominations page when they do so—this was an issue even back when nominations were removed manually once a day had no more open noms left (everything had been closed). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, it's rare that a nomination on the nomination page is closed without having been moved to the approved page. If it is on the approved page and is closed, the bot does not remove it; the bot does nothing on the approved page except add approved nominations to the bottom. If it's on the nomination page and is closed, the bot can either remove it (the current, and uncommon case, as can be seen from v8.3's numerous 0 closed noms removed edit summaries) or it can leave them on the nomination page for a human to eventually deal with. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I read through the older code again and this is in fact not how it works, it does remove closed nominations from the approved page. However, to address what "closed" means for the bot, it's if the nomination has been archived. Specifically, the bot looks to see if the "Please do not modify" archive text has been included. It's not based upon icons, but the intentional closure and archiving. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lascar (volcano) removed from Main Page

Lascar (volcano) was the leading article on the main page. It was promoted as a GA, but it is far from GA quality, so I have removed it. The GA review was done by @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: on 10 October 2017. The user made their first edit on 19 September 2017, and hasn't created a single article. Perhaps they need a lot more experience before they start nominating articles for GA.

Template:Did you know nominations/Lascar (volcano) @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Peacemaker67, BlueMoonset, and Cwmhiraeth:

Some examples of things you wouldn't expect in a GA:

  • "is 5,641 metres, 5,592 metres, 5,450 metres, or 5,641 metres high."
  • "The new town of Talabre is 17 square kilometres (6.6 sq mi) west of Lascar."
  • "As of 2002, Cattle breeding was the principal economic activity in Talabre." Capitalization errors
  • "Precipitation at Lascar is about 50–100 millimetres per year (0.062–0.125 in/Ms)" Ms?
  • "After 8,500 years ago"
  • "that generate eruption columns several 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) high."
  • "The long-term magma supply rate of Lascar is about 0.08 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.00061 cu mi/Gs)" Gs? Fram (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict; I wrote these while the next two replies were posted)

  • "Around 7250 BCE,[140] or 9,200 and 9,100 years ago,"

In the lead, we get "Major eruptions of Lascar occurred 26,500, 26,450 ± 500,[...]" but the body doesn't seem to make it clear anywhere whether these were two and not one eruption.

This is from a very, very cursory reading of the article, and shows the GA to have been highly inadequate. I'll remove the GA status and a new review by a more experienced or thorough reviewer will be needed. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Thanks Fram! I apologize for my note on your talk page, the concerns here are valid and I will also go through the article again to see if I can address some of the concerns. Alex ShihTalk 09:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Mea culpa re: checking the GA review, this was my first DYK QPQ, and I clearly did not check it well enough. I'll endeavour to be more careful in future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem (both of you). We tend to AGF and believe in reviews other post, that's natural. And the article isn't a disaster, far from it, so it's not as if the first two lines already indicate that this can never be a real GA (believe me, I have seen some terrible GAs, this one is far from those). Fram (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Bleh. This isn't the first time I've tripped over such (comparatively minor) text issues. I guess that writing large amounts of text in a short timespan leads to such things falling in. Recently I do always make a cleaning pass after expanding an article, but I had not done so on Lascar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, these issues are normal, I even have then in the much shorter articles I write; it is hard to see all errors in text one has written themselves, one tend to gloss over them after a while. But a decent GA review would find most of them (like the many strange conversions), and if they haven't noticed those, how good is the remainder of their review (e.g. about sourcing?). The problem was not that I didn't trust you or your facts, but that I didn't trust the GA review, based on the actual problems one can find rather easily in the text. And of course, if it isn't a GA, then it can't be a DYK based on its GA status... Fram (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at fixing a few issues, but the whole thing needs a thorough copy edit for grammar. It's a very "translation-ese" form of English right now, very stilted phrasing in places combined with overly informal wording in others. --Khajidha (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=806694582"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:DYK
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Did you know"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA