Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

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.

Requested move 10 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus: the levels of support were similar, and both sides raised good points. As this is of a major Wikipedia process, and is not in the article space, the naming conventions are more difficult to apply, and structuring this as an RM rather than as a general discussion of how to process DYK may have made getting at a consensus more difficult. On the support side, it was raised that the current setup is difficult to navigate, and that the WP namespace is more intuitive. On the oppose size, it was raised that for such a major process, there should likely be a clearer plan on how to move forward. Both are strong points, and while even some of the opposes acknowledged the current setup was non-ideal, I do not feel there is a strong enough consensus to move a process that feeds things to the main page. If anyone is interested in further discussions related to this, I would recommend conducting it as an RfC about how to manage the process, and also having a clearer plan laid out before starting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

– The Wikipedia:Did you know nomination, discussion, and approval process is currently being held in the Template: and Template_talk: namespaces. This arrangement is inconsistent with how we handle other similar nomination processes and violates the core purpose of the namespace which is to provide " Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages". These namespaces are not meant to hold process documentation as given at Template talk:Did you know nor as a place to hold discussions, as seen on the many individual nomination pages like Template:Did you know nominations/Halfway to Sanity, which I'm using here to stand in for the thousands of such discussions that have been created as template namespace subpages (visible at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Did you know nominations/). In my suggested move, the nomination process & documentation will move to the Wikipedia: namespace and individual nomination discussions will be held in subpages of the relevant article's Talk: page. This structure mimics somewhat the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. I understand that the migration and changes will require a good deal of work, but the current structure shows no signs of slowing and is untenable based on how these namespaces are meant to be used. -- Netoholic @ 15:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support Oppose for now, needs further investigation. the concept of working DYK in Wikipedia space, since that is where it belongs. Mechanicals of the switchover need attention (see discussion below). - DePiep (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Re Move #4: good, mimic WP:GAN setup. (Maybe the archives later or keep redirect). See my 10:58 note on the GA process/structure in #discussion below. - DePiep (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Re Move #3: not good enough, better copy WP:TFA setup. See my note on "Getting rid of the queue's" in discussion below. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Having read the thread once more: changed to Oppose for now, needs further investigation. Because: it can not be a simple move (times four) since the processes are heavily tied into this. Also, the four move proposals can be treated as ~three independent moves (in the process unrelated to one another); and so they each could lead to different results. However, any closing conclusion sould be no prejudice on future DYK development. IOW, the proposed changes should be open for a wider proposal (including the DYK process) in the future. - DePiep (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose . The magnitude of possible "oh, we forgot that" cascading problems seem to outweigh doing this for no more reason other than conformity. In addition to the subpages mentioned here. Once you get the subpages taken care of, then you have all those thousands of articles that have an article talk page with a DYK template ("A fact from Timothy Weah appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know?") as a record it appeared on the Main page, and linking directly to nomination templates. Any bots involved have to be rewritten. What else? How many years would it take to straighten it out? How many people would be willing to dedicate their time to fix the heretofore unknown problems created by the move? It's working as is. Let it be. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, drive away new users, make it almost impossible for them to see what's going on with their nominations, should they even work out why they're creating templates in Wikpiedia. I believe it to be absurd to oppose such a straightforward change on that basis. All this hysteria over "we might break it", well we probably won't. The change wouldn't happen by one editor, it's an dev issue by now. All we need to do here is to agree that keeping DYK in its own unique (and intractable and arcane) methodology isn't helpful. Then we get WMF etc to help make the changes. Simple. No stress. And I willingly give my time every day to all the crap that the actual nominations bring to the main page (hopefully before it gets there), so I'd happily volunteer to fix further crap around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I stopped reading at "This structure mimics... Good Article nomination process". What? These are completely unrelated. If you are going to request sweeping changes across something that has stayed the same and worked perfectly fine for the past 12 years or so, you would absolutely need to do more research than this. One reason that it has stayed this way over the years is because DYK is closer to a project in nature, and the nomination process involves more template-related syntax than other similar process like ITN. This requested move is based on the misgudied premise of "DYK process is in the wrong namespace", which isn't an actual problem as pointed out by David Eppstein below. Alex Shih (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all, the system of nominating something for review, promotion etc should be common across Wikipedia. Just because we know it isn't, that doesn't make it right. Actively seeking to contain DYK in a completely arcane process is to drive new editors away and that's something regular editors shouldn't be doing, let alone admins or members of Arbcom. A very poor precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support, as the nominator of Halfway to Sanity still wondering what it was that made that nomination the one chosen as the exemplar. I think the DYK template talk page was used in the early days when nominations were few and far between enough to handle on just subsections of that page. That was almost instantly an Artifact Title, as noted at TV Tropes, since we generally use the talk pages in template namespace to discuss the templates themselves.

    And frankly we should go back to that here. I would not be surprised if the DYK-related pages are the largest and most active within template namespace. They have grown to the point whereby it no longer makes sense to have them in that namespace ... we don't handle FA nominations on a subpage of that template, after all.

    Yes, it will take a lot of time to implement this and there will be thousands of pages to migrate. But we did it before when we split VfD into A/C/R/T/F/MfD, with a few thousand such discussions already concluded and archived.

    I am really surprised no one has suggested this earlier—perhaps because of the magnitude of the work involved. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose in the absence of any cost/benefit analysis showing that the (real) cost in effort of making this change as balanced by an actual improvement in how well DYK functions, rather than merely catering to someone's OCD desire to see all the things in some particular namespace. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    What "cost"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Already, we have caused you, me, and various other editors to spend their time thinking about this proposal. Actually implementing it will also take time and effort, and cause many DYK regulars to have to spend even more time learning new patterns of where to put everything. What do we gain by spending all that time? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    re David Eppstein Thinking & talking about improvements at Wikipedia cannot be considered lost time -- it is the essence. OTOH, editors throwing around half-wit redmeat like Dr. Strangelove-quotes and "someone's OCD desire", like you do here, is where the real unrecoverable loss is. - DePiep (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, the actual cost is the regulars here putting up walls of defence to keep the arcane system from falling into the hands of who it was originally intended, i.e. new editors. It's astonishing to see how far people will go to defend the indefensible. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title seems fine to me Lomrjyo (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the first three moves, Not sure on Oppose the last one (which actually consists of 40,000+ pages). The nominations page is really a project page, not a template discussion page. To imply otherwise would be misleading. As Daniel Case pointed out above, it will be very hard to make the transition, and the transition can't be done all at once, but it can be done. As for individual nominations, I guess we can keep any existing "Template:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME", but make any new nominations under the new title "Talk:PAGENAME/DYK1". Or if that's too hard, just keep these as subpages of {{Did you know nominations}}, since many editors don't actually transclude the DYK nomination onto the talk pages of the articles they're nominating. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Side note: keeping "Template:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME" in that particular namespace makes it easier for editors to transclude {{Did you know nominations/PAGENAME}} onto the nominations page. So if we were to move the nomination pages themselves, it should probably be project (Wikipedia) namespace. For comparison, FA does this with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PAGENAME/archive1. epicgenius (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • P.S. I have changed my !vote to oppose the last proposed move (moving the DYK nomination subpages). It's clear that this needs more discussion, as per below, since this RM's nominator, Netoholic, has proposed abolishing subpages entirely. I am fine if the nomination subpages are moved to Wikipedia space, but I have explained why I oppose moving the nomination subpages to talk space, or worse, abolished. epicgenius (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the principle of moving this arcane system of using templates to something which the rest of Wikipedia has managed to do without. Featured article candidates, featured list candidates, good article candidates etc all manage very well within the Wikipedia namespace, and actually we seldom see confused users relating their tales of woe over the complexity of those processes. DYK on the other hand is the absurd bastard child of a freakish namespace meltdown. The bizarre use of templates and all that go with it make it almost impenetrable to new editors, probably why we have so few of them contributing these days. It makes no sense to new users (part of the audience its intended to encourage) and is stupidly complex and out-of-normal-process in its implementation. Sure, there'll be some teething problems as everything is moved to a better place, but just because "we've always done it this way", it doesn't mean "we should always do it this way". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too many things I can see breaking on simply trying to bring a well-established processed to a guideline that later followed its establishment. If we ever had to rebuild the tools and other functions used to support DYK from the ground up, then it makes sense to address the proper space, but this is far too much that can go wrong here by just addressing the proper mainspace. --Masem (t) 21:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Classic inertia vote. We need to fix the system to encourage new editors to contribute, yet the idea that somehow it would "break" is causing well-established editors to run to the hills. Do you seriously think that a new system would roll out without being tried and tested? The current system is bollocks and completely arcane, and little wonder we have so few new editors contributing to it. Those who vote to oppose this move are actively voting to block new editors from contributing here as the system is so broken, only established and experienced editors can navigate through it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    I am more concerned about scripts, tools, bots, etc. that are designed around DYK templates being in Template: space over Wikipedia: space. If there was a clear list of what tools/etc. all depend on the namespace, and there was a clear and easy path forward to fix all those tools after a renaming, I would be supportive of a move. But we presently have no idea how many there are. There's also no clarity about grandfathering existing nom's., etc. This is presently not a well-thought out proposal for that reason. --Masem (t) 21:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, if the proposal simply aims to take DYK into the same namespace as all the other nomination procedures here, it is well thought out. Technical issues can then be resolved once we have a consensus to move this patently absurd outlier into the real world. It's just lines of code you know. And no-one will die if a mistake occurs. Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Said pretty much every software engineer prior to discovering how refactoring code broke an entire program despite expecting nothing to break. I'm not against this in principle, but I'd rather see a plan set up beyond just the renaming to make sure we're not missing anything obvious in any commonly used tools (such as AWB). There might be obscure user scripts that will break that we can't foresee, that's not what I'm worried about. --Masem (t) 21:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    Masem, an oversimplified reasoning. Of course the setup will be tested. And if the bothandlers can program for the currect setup, they sure can for the rationalised new one. About preparing new software: do you think Wikipedia mediaware is unchanged since 2002? And how often did a change break? - DePiep (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Mediawiki is usually tested on test servers before made live but even then, there has infrequently been a change that breaks things on that forces them to rollback. My point is that trying to do this by a move request is not considering the full implications of problems that could arise, and that needs to be outlined and addressed first. The move should be seen as part of that larger process, not the driving event. --Masem (t) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, though that would expand the proposal (into techical process redesign), not block it. No one here says they are "expecting nothing to break", most say "plan it, test it" etc. (Sure even then mw is not involved as The Rambling Man seems to think; or maybe wrt moving 40k archive pages duh). - DePiep (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Pardon? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Above, you wrote: "Then we get WMF etc to help make the changes". I say: no WMF (or mw or anything outside of enwiki) needed. Close this sub-issue? - DePiep (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    Sure even then mw is not involved as The Rambling Man seems to think... WHO OR WHAT THE FUCK IS MW? By all means "close this sub-issue" but I'd appreciate actually UNDERSTANDING what the supposed "sub-issue" means. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    re The Rambling Man: "mw" is m:MediaWiki, the WMF project that builds & maintains the software of the wiki's. So when you say "Then we get WMF etc to help make the changes", that could include the software developers (as I understood it). My reply to that was: I think a DYK redesign does not require WMF or mw-software-level changes. It can be done within enwiki, IMO. Using templates, bots, etcetera. - DePiep (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A few hours ago I was going to be a strong oppose but I wanted to see some other comments. Reading through them I've come to the opinion that this isn't entirely pointless just mostly pointless. I'm sympathetic to The Rambling Man's point about new users, but I think his and similar arguments overestimate the pain to new users (we have over a month-long backlog of hooks with almost 150 not approved at the time of writing, so clearly people are finding this place okay) while simultaneously underestimating the potential for breaking changes (which as the maintainer of WugBot, are of particular concern for me). So far no one's made a compelling claim that because of the naming we are having substantial problems. If we're concerned about newcomers, I sincerely doubt that new editors are well versed enough in the specifics of the namespace that this distinction matters to them; if it did WP:DYK redirects to the proper page anyway. If our concern is new editors finding the page, make the proposed target pages redirects to here, satisfying the concerns about new editors while also not introducingbreaking changes. After that, all that's really left is the argument for consistency which is weak at best. Sure, WP:BROKE is an essay and WP:TMPG is a guideline, but WP:IAR is a policy and following the namespace guidelines will for sure introduce breaking changes that we can forsee (like WugBot) but also ones we can't. I believe it's best to just leave it be, and if we're concerned about new editors find a more productive and meaningful way of improving DYK. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
See my post "Known problems" in the Discussion below (09:58 today). -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: I've long thought that this should happen. It might be a complex change and I understand the WP:BROKE argument, but it's simply in the wrong namespace. violet/riga [talk] 23:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ralph Waldo Emmerson. Hobgoblins and all that. --Jayron32 01:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    I see: no "foolish consistency", but "Nonconformity" per se. Wiki's WP:IAR always, everywhere, everone. (Note to self: propose to change WP:TFA, WP:POTD, WP:ITN; each differently). - DePiep (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    An attempt to be consistent for its own sake, without regard for the kind of disruption to established processes that work fine as is, would be foolish. Hence, the hobgoblins.--Jayron32 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, that would be. - DePiep (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support in principle. The current setup is a confusing mess. I am not exactly an inexperienced editor, but every time I venture into DYK I struggle to reacquaint myself with its bizarre naming of pages. It is like driving in a place where the traffic signs are the same as usual, except that their meaning has been shuffled.
    Before prsesing the "go" button I'd want to see a clear map and an implementation plan which has been thoroughly scrutinised and tested. This should have been fixed a decade ago if and when the plan is in place, then do it. But oppose until the full plan is ready and checked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
See my post "Known problems" in the Discussion below (09:58 today). -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. This proposal is far too vague. i would want to see a cost/benefit analysis with specifics, and at least some specifics on implementation details. When these sorts of things are handwaved for "concept approval" it all to often means major problems down the road. I've been there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moves 1 and 2, which make the naming of our process consistent at relatively low cost. Oppose move 3, because it seems to me the template namespace is meant for exactly that sort of thing; small independent modules that need to be moved around before they're placed on the main page. Oppose move 4 unless and until someone can convince me that we have prepared enough to do the moves in an afternoon without taking all the bots down. Yes, it appeals to my deep inner desire to have everything nice and consistent, but I don't buy the notion that the namespace itself is driving away new editors. If anyone is experienced enough to know of and to look for DYK, they're going to search for "Wikipedia:Did you know", or "WP:DYK", which both bring them to the right place; and from there there's enough links to walk them through the process. Vanamonde (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this is an attempt to bring DYK into line with GA, I have to oppose. The two are very different and have no need to be harmonised. Plus to be honest, it is just easier this way as people know it and how it works, putting it in WP: could likely cause confusion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It is about the GA pagename structure. See my 10:58 note on the GA process in #discussion below. - DePiep (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harmonising DYK and GA" in any shape or form, simply the reflect the structure within the WP namespace. And honestly, who would get confused beyond a few of the "regulars" who are working so hard to keep the new editors out of the project by proposing to keep this arcane structure in place? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support moves 1 and 2, Oppose moves 3 and 4, per Vanamonde (just 2 above, edit conflict). In the discussion, "the nature of the namespace" was mentioned, but I don't believe in anything natural in how we name things. - I copy the full name when I want to link to a nomination (look for red links with "nom" on my user page which link to future nominations) and navigate by the sidebox, - which seems easy enough for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK seems over-complicated and laborious but its naming standards are a trivial, unimportant issue. Re-design and re-engineering should wait upon a more general WMF upgrade to provide a workflow engine. WP:FLOW was supposed to be that solution but has foundered. Maybe Wikipedia will continue with the current kludges indefinitely but I reckon that that volunteer attrition will require increasing automation and so force the WMF to revisit this within the next ten years. Andrew D. (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Essentially, if we started the DYK process like this, would anyone start an RfC to convert it to Template namespace? Nope, and the various bots should be a couple of simple changes. We managed to convert Wikipedia talk:/Articles for creation/blah to Draft:blah without the world collapsing. Andrew Davidson - I'd love to see a user-friendly discussion system that is 100% backwards compatible with talk pages. In this day and age I find Facebook and Twitter are de facto user interfaces for communication and leaving a post, and we ought to take that as a starting point for what new users would expect. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support all four in theory, but the magnitude and complexity of the moves makes my head spin. But then again, surely this is not unsurmountable with the aid of a bot? Where names were at I always thought was weird. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. These things don't belong in Template: namespace, and it's weird to have them there. This is a big project. It needs some coordination effort and some details settled, but I think we should move in this direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the first three and oppose the fourth. Occasionally, articles that pass DYK are merged or deleted, so having a stable nominations entry in another namespace is worth keeping. Similar to how the AfD is handled (e.g. not in the Talk namespace). SounderBruce 01:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there are processes in place to handle such a change, since moves are generally done when the discussion ends, and that would break everything. I'm also quite dubious about the fourth proposal, which as SounderBruce notes could leave closed nominations stranded. (This happens in the GA space when the article moves but the GA nomination stays under the old name; things do break and stay that way if no one notices who knows how to fix it.) I think another look at an appropriate namespace for that one is in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I am really starting to get annoyed by votes like this. Do you REALLY think a closing admin would read all of this and simply move the pages immediately? That is frankly ridiculous. I hope the closing admin reads these kinds of votes for what they are - not a statement about the nature of the move request itself and the policy question it addresses - just a call for caution when closing, perhaps involving the admins in DYK to make the necessary preparations. -- Netoholic @ 07:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Netoholic: Just read the last part of BlueMoonset's statement. Specifically the part after the first sentence, which says I'm also quite dubious about the fourth proposal, which as SounderBruce notes could leave closed nominations stranded. (This happens in the GA space when the article moves but the GA nomination stays under the old name; things do break and stay that way if no one notices who knows how to fix it.) I think another look at an appropriate namespace for that one is in order. This part of their statement isn't a complaint about how the pages would all be moved immediately. In fact, it is the same issue I mentioned both above and below, where I argued that the talk namespace is not the best place to move the nominations. That is what BlueMoonset and SounderBruce have been saying. epicgenius (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I hope the closing admin will read all of what I have written, not Netoholic's interpretation thereof. But the move proposal doesn't even move all of the DYK pages that are in template space now, which is unsurprising given that the proponents don't seem to understand the workings of DYK, just that it's been in template space for over seven years, which is apparently seven years too long. For the move to be possible without breaking DYK, it will take a lot of coding and testing on many affected processes. I'm not saying it can't be done, for those portions of the proposal that would make sense, but this isn't just a move, it's a redesign and reimplementation of a system, and it's frankly incredible to me that it can be treated like a simple move. If it weren't for the Queue pages, which require an admin (or maybe a page mover?), any "experienced" editor could close this and start moving pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose persuaded by Wugapodes. Also, it's not weird - which I would chalk up to it's not weird to people who don't care about the minutia of namespace (most everyone?), and 2, it was not difficult the first time, so if one wants an article on the main-page (which, frankly, is nothing as important as actually writing the encyclopedia), it's navigable and not difficult (or perhaps, just difficult enough). In short, the 'not worth the candle.'Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though the individual noms should probably be kept as subpages under the Wikipedia namespace. Even with a dozen DYK credits, I still have trouble navigating through DYK's counter-intuitive use of the template namespace. It is not designed for holding discussions; for one thing, the signature button does not appear at the top of the edit box (a minor inconvenience, but it illustrates the fact that not everything is currently working). This is of course with the usual caveat that someone has to figure out how to migrate the entire process without it breaking down. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. To characterize the methodology of this WikiProject as inconsistent with how other nomination processes are handled is premised on the misnomer that there otherwise is a consistent process across the rest of Wikipedia which DYK ought to adhere. There is no such consistent process and DYK should not be made to mimic some other WikiProject just because someone likes, or understands the other project's ways better. No other project should be made to mimic DYK either; regardless as to whether I or someone else likes the way things are done here, which I in fact do. DYK fashioned her own manifest destiny just like the others, and came in to her own rather well. The template driven modus of this project does not violate the core purpose of the template namespace either. Its template pages are intended for transclusion on multiple pages and if done by the numbers, are transcluded by some multiple greater than one.--John Cline (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
My support was not for the reasons you describe here (abjectively). Nor because other MP sections are doing better/worse. Main Page/DYK has serious issues, and the nom pointed them out, maybe indirectly. The proposal has a point. (spoiled energy of experienced & involved DYK editors/admins; frustration with nominating editors; bad setup). - DePiep (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Never understood why the pages lived in the template namespace and it always felt wrong. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BlueMoonset. I normally prefer to extrapolate my own !votes but they've put it very succinctly. Nomader (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the first three moves per User:Paul 012, the nominator, User:The Rambling Man and WP:NOPROBLEM. First, these pages have only tangential relation to "Template Talk". Second, the current system is broken as noted above. User:Wugapodes might be right that the the current less-than-intuitive titles are not inherently more intimidating for new users, but the current setup can be confusing to more seasoned editors who don't spend much time on DYK (e.g., me). Few of the oppose comments above express affection for the current system; in the spirit of WP:WORKINPROGRESS, cast aside inertia and improve the editor experience. —  AjaxSmack  04:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support #1-#3, weak support #4 assuming that the changes are done carefully. These things shouldn't be in template namespace and should (where appropriate) be consistent with GAN etc. DexDor (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the principle of ditching templates, per TRM. I had nearly 300 new entries created before I figured out how to manage this. Not great. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Just makes much more sense, the first time I looked at the DYK process I was so confused why it wasn't structured exactly like in this proposal.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is an enormous amount of labor for a very small benefit, especially with #4. Having the nominations in a non-standard namespace doesn't cause any technical problems with MediaWiki, and doesn't cause any practical problems for people working on nominations. All the pages are clearly linked from the navbox. We should spend out labor thoroughly vetting nominations rather than making structural changes that have little or no positive effect. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 01:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Using tool "Page information" (lefthand menu) [1], it says subpages: 40,538 (687 redirects; 39,851 non-redirects) -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
However, Netoholic, Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles says a 85,210 articles, double!? (by having a talkpage DYK template message). Did not research this difference yet. - DePiep (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep, the discrepancy in number is likely because in earlier years prior to implementation of the bot, we used to manually update Template:Did you know from nominations submitted at Template talk:Did you know. Alex Shih (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current arrangement certainly appears to be idiosyncratic, but I'm not sure I understand why it's untenable (or worth doing the work that would be involved to change it). When we changed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, we left a lot of old discussions where they were for 6 years before giving the job to User:SmackBot. I'd think the place to start would be a consensus among the editors working on DYK that something needs to change, rather than moving the archives as a first step. Dekimasuよ! 16:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is more to gain consensus that the process must move out of the template: space. Precisely how the 40,000+ old leftover nomination template subpages are handled will certainly be discussed afterwards and is probably no great rush. What's untenable is allowing that number of 40,000 to continue growing when it goes against the nature of the namespace. --Netoholic @ 17:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Some questions. Netoholic, do you foresee problems especially when switching over? Toothing pains, or a complicated new process to learn? Or maybe you have improvements/simplifications in mind? Does it need sandboxing? - DePiep (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
DYK has a lengthy backlog, and so any transition should be covered without a gap in quality. I don't see much issue with moving the process documentation, but I'll be honest, the mechanisms used in the DYK project are a bit impenetrable to understand from the outside. They might want to discuss whether separate subpages for each nomination even still fit their needs, or if they could get by using an article talk page section like how the bot-maintained WP:RM process works. Pinging the DYK bot owner Wugapodes. to see what he thinks. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BROKE, is there an actual problem that this big change would fix? Something causing DYK to function less smoothly than it should? Or is this purely about the purity of our bodily fluids namespace tags? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I just read WP:BROKE. Interesting piece, has nice answers & angles. Now, as was described in the proposal, the moves are an improvement because the DYK process is in the wrong namespace. - DePiep (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Because it's in the wrong namespace" isn't an actual problem, something that slows the process, leads to wrong results, or causes people unnecessary effort. More, the individual nominations are in the *right* namespace for how they are used: something to be transcluded on other pages (the nomination collection pages of various sorts and the article talk pages). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:BROKE is an essay, WP:TMPG is a guideline. Individual DYK nominations are not even consistently transcluded to the related articles Talk: page since per DYK instructions, doing so is optional ("Consider adding [template] to the article's talk page"). And once a DYK nomination is done, there is no process to cleanup the now-orphaned templates, and so they almost all are eligible for deletion per WP:TMPG: "Templates that violate the guidelines on this page, have poorly-defined function, are redundant, become orphaned or used on only one page, or violate other Wikipedia policies may be nominated for deletion". This current setup is a clear misuse of the namespace's purpose. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
re David Eppstein: I mentioned re-reading WP:BROKE to hint that it is more that just a slogan. It also uses wording like: "improve Wikipedia", "slightly broken in a way that you care about", "then feel free". In other words: it is not cast in concrete. So again: wrong namespace, open for improvement. Meanwhile, you are free to not see this as a "problem", and so not bother. - DePiep (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Known problems. In the survey and in the discussion, some editors say that there are "no problems" claimed with the WP:DYK page setup. For example: So far no one's made a compelling claim that because of the naming we are having substantial problems. (Wugapodes, DYK-bot Wugbot handler). (ping The Rambling Man).
  • Nominating editor, new/potential (could be me): So per DYKbox, we learn/guess that new nominations should be entered at WP:DYKN, which is ... nor a Wikipedia page, nor a subject page (it is Template, and talk). BTW, guess where the DYKbox's header is leading. Once arrived, loads of instructions I have to read "completely", plus: "If this is your first nomination, please read the DYK rules before continuing". Then the editor may ask FAQ: "Where is my hook?". (First: find the answer to FAQ #1: "What is a hook?)". Answer: your hook could be at "approved nominations page waiting to be promoted", "also have been added to one of the prep areas" [sic: copy/pasted? in a template?!], "promoted to a queue", or on "main page" (these are five different links). And of course: "If ... none [of these five], then the nomination has probably been rejected" or maybe see page "/rejected" [?]. Plus there are also "To report errors in the queue, WT:DYK" and "To report an error, see Main Page errors". Incidentally nomination of some status may even be present at the article talkpage (today: Talk:Halfway_to_Sanity, transcluded not linked to [2], but not done by a bot so it may be found incidentally).
All pages are full of warnings and uppercase rules: "REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN", "MUST be approved", "ADMINISTRATORS ...", "ATTENTION [big red]"; [mostly saying "Attention - This warning is not for you, editor!"]. The nominating page has a big table in top with red blocks; looks like counting hooks is important. How inviting.
All in all not the best way to invite & keep new contributors.
  • Participants (active admins, experienced nominators, reviewers).
Currently, #DYK_participants lists 9 actively involved admins (to compare: WP:TFA is run by four -- in shifts, i.e. only one per single month). Next are listed 26 admins, then together 29 non-admin editors. Apparently this is a heavily admin-driven WikiProject: consuming or even requiring massive admin attention. Why? Because the setup is too complicated? It takes a long learning curve to master the "departments". And also there is this: "The hooks below have been approved by an administrator" (here). This suggests the even an approval is by the admin, but I hope this is a miswriting ('OK per the community, and thereby an admin has edited a protected page'). However, if even making consensus is admin only, we have a serious problem at hand; larger than this Move proposal.
  • Template setup. I See the main page's template {{Did you know}}. Loads of noincluded content, hardcoded texts, another copy/paste. History is gone. Actually, if there is one reason to use Template space it is this: reuse the code!
  • Objections: Apart from Wugbot maintainer, most opposition is like "It could introduce errors, so keep it". That shows little trust in the improvement process, core to Wikipedia. Opposition for lack of trust in the improvement process?, I have no other word for it.
  • Conclusion here: Most complaints and "problems" are not mentioned by editors because these editors do not arrive here. They have been chased away about halfway DYK page 1 (whichever page that is). That is: otherwise experienced editors; new DYK editors. The low number of active participants is a predictable bottelneck (not enough contributors in the DYK process: too difficult). Yes this is not all & only due to page names, but even so incorrect page names (namespaces) is the cause and the reflection of the problems. The pagename problems are complementary to the process: same parents. Together with pagenames, the basic process should be rethought.
- DePiep (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep:: literally all your complaints here are related to the language and markup of each page, and have nothing to do with the namespace in which the process is conducted. They would be completely unaffected by the proposed changes. If you want to propose changes to the instructions to make them clearer, please, go right ahead. Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I gave the example FAQ "Where is my hook?". Also I mentioned that when I click a "WP" shortcut, and I end up on a template talkpage - I'm gone, I don't trust the "WikiProject". AFAIK, I myself have never contributed to DYK anypage, and this is why. How is that documentation only? As I wrote in the conclusions: pagename and process are twinned from their evolution. This is what nom points to when he says: let's take a look at the GAN process for example. - DePiep (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The GA nomination process In the proposal the WP:GAN process structure is mentioned for this reason: the GA nomination discussion is with the article. e.g., Talk:Halfway to Sanity/GA1. Which makes perfect sense. That would be Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK1 then, as proposed. Also, the GA status (nominee, failed, passed) is with the article the article talkpage. Good too: status change should not require a Move action, and never ever copy/pasting content (quite astonishing that our main page has copy/pasted content without history). Note also that the nom says "mimic ... structure" (ns & page naming & status), not about nominating judgements.
Incidentally, maybe a DYK nomination better have the DYK-status in the nom subpage instead of regular article talkpage, because one article could have multiple independent DYK nominations? - DePiep (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
adding: re the 40k existing discussions in archive: a. After switchover is stable make have a bot do it. b. Leave them where they are (cutoff date like "closed pre 1 July 2018"), R is cheap. c. Bot creates R in article talkpage? Whatever, not a blocking situation for this change. - DePiep (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
In the proposal the WP:GAN process structure is mentioned for this reason: the GA nomination discussion is with the article. e.g., Talk:Halfway to Sanity/GA1. Which makes perfect sense. That would be Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK1 then, as proposed. Yeah, but you can only run a DYK hook once, ever, so it's likely that the article will only be nominated once. You can't run a DYK for Halfway to Sanity when it's created, then again when it's 5-times expanded, then again when it passes GA. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to have talk-page DYK nominations numbered like that, because it's very, very unlikely that the article will have a second DYK nomination. It's pretty rare to have a DYK nomination fail the first time, then pass the second time (or even the other way around). I don't have a list on hand, but you could look through Category:Failed DYK nominations and see plenty of examples.
On the other hand, it is possible for a GA to be nominated, re-nominated, listed, de-listed, re-listed, ad infinitum. That's how the GA process is structured. Same with FA. They are numbered so if you had something like Talk:Second Avenue Subway/GA1 and it didn't pass, you go on to Talk:Second Avenue Subway/GA2.
Furthermore, DYKs are designed so you can nominate multiple articles in the same hook. GA and FA don't have that. Therefore, if someone wanted to nominate multiple hooks (e.g Template:Did you know nominations/M60, Q70), they'd have to decide which article to place the DYK under (in this case, either Talk:M60 (New York City bus), or Talk:Q70 (New York City bus)). This current "Template:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME" setup, on the other hand, doesn't force the nominator to make a choice at all, since they can just group the pages under whatever name they think is best. epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
None of these are problems under the simple proposal to move from template space to Wikipedia space. In fact, worse, they're all red herrings. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: That was in reply to DePiep's proposal above. I agree that none of these are problems if the templates for DYK nominations are moved to Wikipedia space. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(ec) re Epicgenius So we remove the "1" from Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK1: Solved. So one cannot nominate two articles in one DYK nomination any more: Solved. (I want to declare that option a true current problem BTW). Please return to my main point. Hint: it is stressed in the quote you added. - DePiep (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: I will repeat a part of what I quoted, and put it in bold. The GA nomination discussion is with the article. e.g., Talk:Halfway to Sanity/GA1. (1) So what's wrong with putting these nominations in Wikipedia space? FAC and XFD do that. It is GA that is the outlier here. (2) Your suggestion does not solve the problem of "one cannot nominate two articles in one DYK nomination any more" because you still have editors who want to nominate 2 or more articles at once. This is actually a common practice at DYK. Which goes back to my question about why we can't put these nominations in Wikipedia space. epicgenius (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I say: "discussion-is-with-the-article, good". Nothing wrong with "in Wikipedia space", but today it is not so what do you propose? Above, you say 'The nominations page is really a project page' which is not true (it is template space, full stop). Further, I don't see why you are shifting topics and I am afraid again this is drowing in irrelevancies not solving thinking (must I really explain why an XFD discussion is not with-the-X-page?). As for the double nominations: not needed and already solved for future (as I said: its existance is a true problem). Enough for today. - DePiep (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, now I'm confused. How are the multi-nominations "not needed"? Obviously, there have been nominations of multiple articles, which can't be easily sorted under a single article's talk page. Hence my Wikipedia-space proposal.
Also, you're misinterpreting my words. I said, "the nominations page is really a project page" because that's what it's supposed to be, a project page. Right now, it is a template talk page, but we want to move it to a project page.
Finally, your comment about XFDs is hypocritical. You want to model the DYK process's structure off the GA process's structure (something altogether different), yet when I mention XFDs, they are "irrelevant"? If that's the case, your GA comparison is also irrelevant and we should just propose moving all the DYK nominations to Wikipedia space, regardless of whatever the GA or FA project is doing. epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Multi-nominations is irrelevant, and a distracting detail. It's current form can never be a blocking point in this redesign. - DePiep (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If the DYK nominations really are just a one-time event, then I'm even more doubtful of the need for any nomination subpages being used, in favor of a simple section on the article's existing Talk: page. The WP:RM process does this, and also handles multiple moves in one discussion section, so any multi-noms can be handled the same way with a centralized discussion on one Talk: page and nofitications posted on any related Talk: pages directing them to that section. -- Netoholic @ 18:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Based on your suggestion above, I'm not sure you fully understand why the DYK nominations process does work with subpages. The subpages make it easier to centralize discussion on the DYK nominations page, and approve or reject them. Also, they are short, so they are easy to transclude. By converting to a talk-page format, you would be making it harder for potential reviewers to access the nominations, since obviously you can't transclude a whole talk page. You can't tell editors to transclude individual sections either, because the inexperienced editors will mess it up. The nominations subpage system is not broken, and it doesn't need to be fixed. epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
But using subpages is the exact oppose way to "centralize discussion". The discussions may be transcluded to Template talk:Did you know for viewing, but that page looks huge and unwieldy, and the actual discussions are decentralized and happen on a myriad of subpages. If the discussion was held on the talk page of the article, then the article editors watching those pages would be more aware of the discussion and could more easily participate. Also, WikiProjects could track the DYK discussions and be posted to their Article_alerts page (see this example) for members of the WikiProject to participate. Right now, DYK is an insulated process. -- Netoholic @ 01:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Netoholic: I'll address your points in order: epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussions may be transcluded to Template talk:Did you know for viewing, but that page looks huge and unwieldy, and the actual discussions are decentralized and happen on a myriad of subpages. But at least you can see the actual nominations from the main "nominations" page. The nominations aren't decentralized by splitting them up into subpages. They're simply split up into different pages for ease of viewing and to avoid a single long "nominations" page with a million revisions. You can still see all the open nominations from the main "nominations" page.
If the discussion was held on the talk page of the article, then the article editors watching those pages would be more aware of the discussion and could more easily participate. The current nomination subpages are compatible with transclusion on talk pages. In fact, some editors do transclude the discussion onto the talk page of the article. The simple solution for this problem is to make it a requirement to transclude the nomination subpage on the article.
Also, WikiProjects could track the DYK discussions and be posted to their Article_alerts page (see this example) for members of the WikiProject to participate. Then we can program the DYK bot to show article alerts if one of the WikiProject's articles is listed in a new DYK nomination. There could be a way to do this - just make the bot check periodically for the "article credits" (whatever is given as the first parameter in Template:DYKmake) in new nominations, then check the talk page of the article that's being nominated, and update the article alerts of all relevant WikiProjects.
Right now, DYK is an insulated process. True, but it doesn't have to be, if the nomination subpage is required to be transcluded onto the article's talk page, rather than making this optional. Your proposal does make it easier for WikiProjects to participate, but at the expense of making it harder for DYK admins, nominators, and reviewers to submit and check their work. I'm sure we can make the DYK process work with different nomination subpages. epicgenius (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Even if transcluded there, article talk pages only get one "ping" on their Watchlist for the DYK nom - the edit that places the tranclusion there. They don't get the benefit of seeing the discussion happen, and an editor that is gone for even a day or two might see that Watchlist ping fall of the list altogether. For discussions like WP:RM (this one for example), I can put it on my watchlist and see every comment come in if I want, that creats engagement in the discussion. As to your last point "making it harder for DYK admins, nominators, and reviewers": I think you forget who this process is for. Its not for an insular cadre of regulars, its for new editors who make great contributions to the encyclopedia. I have full faith that the DYK regulars can adjust to this change, and in fact we should make them adjust to it. -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, this is easily solved by making the bot post article alerts on affected WikiProjects. So what if it's only one watchlist edit? Better than nothing at all. If the editor is really interested they will watchlist the DYK nomination. If not, then we don't need to clog the editor's watchlist with a totally tangential discussion.
But this is really irrelevant since you're forgetting what the bulk of DYK nominations are. Most DYK nominations right now are either newly created pages (so there are probably very few people watching these pages) or five-fold and GA expansions (where anyone watching the page would have a heads-up beforehand that maybe the expander is aiming for DYK, in which case an Article Alert like the one I proposed above would work). Additionally, in most cases you only need one editor to nominate a DYK, one to approve it, and one to move it to prep. Again, if a WikiProject member sees this proposed Article Alert is interested, they can look at the article's talk page and comment directly on the nomination subpage that's being transcluded.
I don't think DYK editors will easily "adjust to it" as you say, based on the oppose !votes above from regulars. What you are proposing is so radical that this RM alone won't come to a consensus on whether to abolish subpages. epicgenius (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
(Also see SounderBruce's !vote above for why this should be in template space, versus talk page space. If the article is later deleted or merged, it will be impossible or very hard to access the old DYK nomination, e.g. this nom for a fake article. This problem disappears with subpages. epicgenius (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC))
You know what, on further discussion, I think this is the wrong venue for considering whether to abolish subpages, or to move them to talk or project space. It should be covered further in an RFC. epicgenius (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting rid of the queue's. Now this is about true problems, and a simple solution (not a simple switchover though).
At the moment, pages are MOVEd around (ns:pagename change). Also, in between, content is copy/pasted from one page to another: prepare, queue, T:DYK (main page). The moves make the topic (article, hook) hard to find if at all; let alone it's status. The copy/pasting removes history from contributions and makes backtracking a hook nigh impossible. Both of these are true problems to be solved.
In short, I propose to make this setup (all per D-Day, say "July 1, 2018"):
1. Stable article DYK page. The nomination (having discussion and status) is created as a subpage of the article's talkpage. Example: Talk:Halfway to Sanity/DYK. This page name does not move ever. It starts with a statustemplate "nominated" {{DYKnominated}}. By the known process, statustemplate may change to {{DYKaccepted}}. Actual preferred hook may be enveloped in {{DYKhook}}. Such templates will categorise, have the topic, preferred MP date, etc.
2. Main_page content in dated WP:subpage of {{DYK}}: Wikipedia:Did you know/July 12, 2018. This page takes over current prep, queue and T:DYK. That is: this is where the collecting & preparation happens. The page name does not change in the buildup process: once on Mainpage, it is the archive page. This is the same as WP:TFA. Note the ns: WP. It is WikiProject stuff. Preps and queue pages are not used any more.
3. TBD: How to gather individual hooks? That is: from the DYK-subpage (nomination) into date page? Read (transclude) template {{DYKhook}}? Subst? Line up for bot? Relevant: text development continues in the dated page? talk at nomination page.
4. Switchover time: sure. Overseeable. - DePiep (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Isn't this effectively making DYK the same process as ITN? Articles get proposed, people !vote "support" or "oppose" on them, if there's sufficient consensus to support, the article is posted. I'm not sure it'll scale to the number of nominations we get at DYK, but it'd be interesting to hear out views on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The DYK process should not be a thing of "oppose" versus "support". DYK is mostly a matter of fact, whether the nomination is eligible and whether the hook is interesting to a reasonable person. ITN is a matter of (educated) opinion, whether the nomination is newsworthy. But that's a matter for another RFC. epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I am not familiar with the ITN process. However, this is about page handling, not decision making of DYK. Unchanged is that the same editor who decides "This nomination is OK" now copy/pastes, but then will change template(s) on the fixed nomination talkpage. (wrap the correct hook in a template, fit for bot handling e.g.). Same for rejection and hook edits like punctuation. The difference is: not moving around pages (pagename change), not copy/pasting content (transclude it!). About the actual hook gathering into one daylist I said "To Be Decided", is more compounded than the single WP:TFA; possibly ITN has nice (technical) solutions. - DePiep (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@DePiep: I'm going to ask again, what is the benefit of having these nominations in talk-page space (where the different nominations are fragmented into 40,000 different article subpages), rather than Wikipedia space (which is under one subpage)? The only argument I'm hearing is "GA does it, so DYK should do it too". Also, the DYK process is more complicated than "putting the hooks in a date-specific subpage". Preps and queues get moved around to different dates all the time. Finally, we don't need a "D-Day" or any of that nonsense. Switchover takes time, and I doubt that such a large change will happen that quickly, so better to just gradually ease into the new routine if it's implemented. epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Because: today they are not in WP space, the proposal does not put them in WP space, the proposal explicitly points to WP:GAN which puts them in article Talkspace. I also answered before: "With the article = good". If you want to hand over considerations or start weighing options, please start doing so. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That was my alternative proposal, moving the nominations from template space to project space. So for example, Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/PAGENAME rather than Talk:PAGENAME/DYK. I'm not all that convinced that this move proposal has to follow GA procedure to the dot. If all the other proposed moves are to project space, why not move the nominations pages to project space? epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Epicgenius as one can read I am exhausted after this day of DYK research. Tomorrow I'll take a fresh look at this page, and will pick up the better points to go ahead. See you. - DePiep (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Process question

  • Process question how does a hook end up from nomination page into mainpage? Especially, from nom page to queue? Is that copy/pasted (by admin/editor/bot)? Nom page is moved (too)? - DePiep (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep - Shubinator and Wugapodes need to weigh in on this, because their bots do much of the work. But here is my understanding of how it works. The nominations stay on the Template talk:Did you know page until approved. Once approved WugBot moves them to Template talk:Did you know/Approved page, where they stay until promoted. At times, if a nomination appears to need further attention, it is moved back to the original Template DKY. Wugapodes needs to weigh in on whether the reverse move is done by WugBot. From the approved page to a Prep set is done by volunteer editors who do not have to be admins. From the prep to a queue can only be done by an Admin. DYKUpdateBot, which is maintained by Shubinator removes the hooks from queue. The DYKUpdateBot places them on Template:Did you know, from which they are transcluded to the main page. That bot also places individual templates on each article as a record that it was on the main page. Once their time on the main page is ended, that same bot archives them at Wikipedia:Recent additions. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(ce) Thanks. Clear enough for the moment. I understand a bot "move" is a page move (name change). Then approve to prep and prep to queue is manually (and also, I fear, by copy/paste). From queue/x to Mainpage (T:DYK) by bot again I saw (c/p again). - DePiep (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep Right above the Prep section is "Instructions on how to promote a hook" which are the details of that process, if you're interested. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thx. I was actually into the complete technical background process (that into-prep process is interesting & telling though). Of course, I can also track back edits re a certain hook (backwards from main page), but I am exhausted by now, researching. No more questions. - DePiep (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: WugBot currently only does one-way moves: nom page to approved page. I'm in the process of writing the bot so that it can do two-way moves per this discussion. Due to a string of real life issues this has gone more slowly than anticipated. @DePiep: I'm busy at the moment but can give a technical run-down of how WugBot works later in the day, but if you (or anyone else) knows Python, the code is publicly available here on github. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry Wugapodes. Clearly this simple namespace change won't fly, so no bot changes :-). However: if there are process & bot changes in the future, we will consult you. Clear & crisp. - DePiep (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
A bot move is not a page move, if you mean that a Wikipedia page is actually moved (name changed). What happens is that a one-line transclusion of the DYK nomination page is moved from the Nominations page to the Approved page; the page being transcluded remains exactly where it is with the same name it has always had. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
See below, the Georg Decker DYK-(self-redacted)unclarity. - DePiep (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(self-redacted)Unclear to me. Recent Template:Did you know nominations/Georg Decker is not Template:Did you know/nominations/Georg Decker. - DePiep (talk)
I bet your pardon? Are you posting that for me? Did I mis-state something?
Slash is missing. Quite relevant to the OP topic (e.i., page names). Why or how could I expect link #1, the bluelink? - DePiep (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I know that. I saw it. But to whom are you saying "Bullshit"? If you're saying it to me, I have no idea why. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
(Redacted) -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I self-redacted some of my comments, inappropriate language. Probably born from some frustration wrt the complexity. My excuses go to Maile66.- DePiep (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
DePiep OK, thanks. All I really meant, is that I wasn't sure whether you were addressing my comment, or one of the subsequent postings to my comment. That's what I didn't understand. But it really doesn't matter, now that BlueMoonset has followed up with a much better explanation of the process than I had. — Maile (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
To answer the original question, "how does a hook end up from nomination page into mainpage?":
  • Nominator creates a template page via the Template talk:Did you know#To nominate an article section by entering the name of the article into the box provided, and then filling in the form that comes up, and transcluding the nomination under the appropriate date on the Template talk:Did you know (Nominations) page
  • The nomination is reviewed, and any necessary fixes are made; if the nomination passes, a tick icon is added
  • Wugbot, the next time it runs, will see the tick and move the transclusion of the nomination from the Nominations page to the Approved page
  • At some point in the future, an editor will put together a "prep" set of approved hooks, using one of six prepare areas; the first is Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1, and the rest are numbered 2 through 6.
  • One of the approved hooks will be copy/pasted into the upper, Hooks section
  • The DYKmake and DYKnom templates (at least one DYKmake, but could be more entries) are copy/pasted into the Credits section
  • The template on the nomination page, DYKsubpage, is "subst"ed, which closes the nomination page, adds it to the appropriate category, and makes it invisible on the Approved page.
  • Wugbot, the next time it runs, will delete the transclusion of this nomination from the Approved page
  • An administrator will check the prep set, make any necessary fixes, and when satisfied it is appropriate to run on the main page, copy/pastes it to the next empty queue (for example, Template:Did you know/Queue/1; there are six in all), which only admins can edit, adding a DYKbotdo template at the top that tells the DYKUpdateBot that the queue is ready to be promoted to the main page and who put it together. (The admin also clears out the prep, updates which prep is the next one to be promoted, etc.)
  • DYKUpdateBot will run at the appropriate interval (every 24, 12, or 8 hours, depending on the current frequency of promotions) and copy/paste the queue to Template:Did you know, which is what the main page transcludes so the DYK section appears there. The bot also copy/pastes the prior set to the DYK archive, notifies the nominations/creators of articles, posts credits to the article pages and image page, clears out the just-promoted queue, and a bunch of other stuff.
I haven't gotten down into the weeds, but I think I've got all of the relevant steps. There aren't any actual page moves involved that I can think of; if I've overlooked one, I apologize. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speciation experiments

Did anyone with a biology degree read this article before approving it for Wikipedia, much less putting it on the main page?

How about a research scientist, oh heck, an undergraduate who had done a literature review?

A high school student who has written a paper?


--2600:1700:FB00:9C00:B588:C8FA:62A0:5720 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything quantifiably wrong with it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This would be Template:Did you know nominations/Laboratory experiments of speciation. I don't have a biology degree, I've never been a research scientist, haven't done a literature review, and haven't written high school papers for approaching 30 years, so I don't personally have a clue what the article is talking about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not unfamiliar with evolutionary biology, and while the structure of the page could be improved (I'm not a fan of the table, which reads too much like a literature review in a scientific journal and too little like an encyclopedia article) I am not able to see any major factual inaccuracies here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
But you are unfamiliar with biology. The entire article is based on a factual inaccuracy. holy moley --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:BE (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Queue 1 - 2017 Capcom Cup

Nom subpage

This may be a bit pedantic, but I think it's slightly misleading. " ... that 18-year-old Dominican Street Fighter V player Saul Leonardo Mena "MenaRD" Segundo wants to invest his winnings from the 2017 Capcom Cup back into his local community?" I have a couple of issues.

  • Firstly, this hook, to me, makes out that Mena is going to use his winnings charitably. However, this makes it clear, once you read past the first paragraph, that Mena wants to strengthen his local videogaming community to create more top gamers. ("[I would] grow my scene" he said. "I would invest in that and make it bigger to attract people to learn fighting games in the Dominican Republic.")
  • Secondly, the 2017 Capcom Cup was held in December 2016, 17 months ago - and the rest of that linked article tells how Mena is already doing this - he's created a new gaming team and a circuit of tournaments to help others qualify for big events ("Mena is making strides to give back to those who helped him achieve greatness.")
  • Based on that, I would tweak this hook to something like " ... that 18-year-old Dominican Street Fighter V player Saul Leonardo Mena "MenaRD" Segundo is investing his winnings from the 2017 Capcom Cup in his local e-sports community?". Thoughts?

Pinging @Maplestrip, Narutolovehinata5, and Cwmhiraeth: Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that works, so I wouldn't mind a sysop boldly doing this edit themselves. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I read the hook when promoting it and had the same thoughts, but I felt it was too pedantic too bring up; now that you've mentioned it, I think your suggestions are a definite improvement. Vanamonde (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems good to me too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
l approve the proposed changes as well. I never intended to suggest that he was using his earnings for anything other than his local esports community, and in my tunnel vision didn't realize it could be interpreted differently. ~Mable (chat) 06:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Given strong consensus here, I've gone ahead and made the change. Vanamonde (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 3

T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
  • ... that parasitoid wasps in the genus Trogus emerge (pictured) through the side of swallowtail pupae after using liquid to soften the hard casing?
@Umimmak: @Premeditated Chaos: @Narutolovehinata5:
I moved this out of the image slot because I couldn't figure out what was going on in the thumbnail image. It looked like a breast, or maybe an infected knee. Looking at the article, I find this very clear image which would make a fine thumbnail image, perhaps with ALT1:
T. pennator
T. pennator
  • ... that parasitoid wasps in the genus Trogus (example pictured) lay eggs in caterpillars which often get collected by lepidopterists?
Pinging involved editors for comment. Yoninah (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we could cheat and add (Click on image to enlarge) in the caption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think the hook should be in the original slot as Narutolovehinata5 had intended. Like I said in my nomination, it might be better to use just Fig 4 to accompany the hook (see right). Can it be moved back to the first slot with this image instead?
T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
T. lapidator emerging from Papilio machaon pupa
Umimmak (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for providing that option. Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Queue 3

I was trying very hard to keep the McCallum Bagpipes and "I'm A Good Ol' Rebel" hooks separate in the set, because they both deal with music, but somehow they got pushed together. Could an administrator move McCallum Bagpipes up above Captain Ruck-Keene? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulled stuff from last week

Hi, I was hoping to keep on top of all the hooks I pulled from queue last week, but I don't think that's going to happen, so I'm listing them here:

These all need checking and put back into prep / queue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Ritchie, that fact tag wasn't warranted--see MOS:PLOT. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    Wrong. The claims needed verifying, especially as the rest of the section was referenced. You can't/shouldn't have it both ways. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I answered the “better source” tag on the nomination when you first queried it, to clarify I put the tag myself on creation of the page as it was a non-controversial biographical fact from the author’s own website, I added the tag for transparency. Mramoeba (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
All these hooks are now either back on a nominations page or have been promoted and archived. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Special date request: 2018 CONCACAF Champions League Finals (25 April)

Just chiming in to ask if the hook for 2018 CONCACAF Champions League Finals can run on 25 April, which is the day of the second leg match. I have added an ALT hook in the nomination that would be more appropriate for that date. SounderBruce 00:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the hook to the special holding area for that date. Don't you want to add the word "final" to the revised hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a short while ago; here is an updated list with 37 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of March. Right now we have a total of 297 nominations, of which 136 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) 05:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 image

Could someone crop the lead image File:Replica Book of Hours by Patricia Lovett.jpg so the center part with the illustrations shows up better? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Anticipating Errors: I like article and image, but that is of course not a medieval book of hours, and to my understanding not even a replica of one, but an artistic imagination of such a thing, - no idea what that is in correct English. Should be in hook or caption or both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a "replica" so added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Then please change our aricle Replica, which says "... is an exact reproduction, such as of a painting, as it was executed by the original artist or a copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original." - This is no exact reproduction, but a new work of art in an older style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to make such changes yourself. I'm going by my understanding of the word replica. The article you linked even says "A replica is a copying closely resembling the original concerning its shape and appearance." I am too busy to worry now, at least it's better than claiming she actually created a mediaeval piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, if you don't like "replica", then please change the Patricia Lovett article and the description of the image being used as well to suit your preference. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I would if I knew how to call it properly. If someone creates an image of sunflowers in the style of Van Gogh, that's not a replica - for me, but I lack the term for what it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You would call the Van Gogh imitation a "copy". But people understand a "replica" replicates, or reproduces, the original. I tweaked the caption and hook. Yoninah (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Not what I mean, not a copy (which could be forgery), but: painting a different image imitating a style. If I understand the article right - possibly I don't - she made something that looks like a medieval book of hours, to be handled in a film - where they can't use an original. She made not a copy of a specific model (which would be a replica) but something that [only) looks like a medieval one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this has had enough done now, let's do it all again some time (at ERRORS perhaps!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Pastiche. Fram (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given the hook a tweak which hopefully resolves the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

[Attention needed] Is it time to increase the burn rate?

Right now all 6 prep sets are loaded, and 3 queues are loaded. There are 132 approved nominations waiting to be promoted (out of 290). I don't understand the math here, but I do know that we are keeping up with hook promotions but have no more room to build new sets. Yoninah (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There are currently 139 approved hooks plus 64 hooks in the prep sets and queues, that's 200 approved hooks in total. We are getting through these at the rate of 8 a day so it will take twenty-five days to work our way through this backlog, and new nominations will be coming in all the time. I suggest we move to two sets a day until the accumulation of approved hooks gets down to a more acceptable level. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, two sets a day looks reasonable right now, our quality is reasonable at this time, so let's hope it's not impacted by doubling the rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Two sets per day seems reasonable, although we should make sure that reviews happen quickly or the old rate is restored before we run out. There are 145 approved hooks but another 153 open ones at this time. Regards SoWhy 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Support two sets per day until the total number of approved hooks drops to 80 (ten sets), then return to one set per day. -Zanhe (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's hope a suitably capable admin passes by and implements this change which has unanimous support. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we going to do 2 sets of 7 hooks each, or 2 sets of 8 hooks each? 7 hooks each seems more reasonable to me. Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not supposed to go down to 7 hooks, since that unbalances the main page. 8 hooks is the new normal—looking at the main page right now, even with eight hooks, the TFA/DYK side is a little shorter than the ITN/OTD side, and going down to 7 would make the imbalance worse. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
the TFA/DYK side is a little shorter than the ITN/OTD side — Would having one set of 9 hooks a day make an appreciable dent then? How many hooks are getting approved on average a day? Less than 9? Umimmak (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
If you mean by promoted, eight a day. But approved, it's sometimes even less than 9. I've seen days when only five hooks were approved in a single day. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well if on average less than 8 or 9 hooks get approved then I don't see the need to increase to multiple sets of hooks a day. Already they're getting promoted faster than they're being approved it seems. Umimmak (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The fact that everything up to Prep 6 gets filled now is a sign of a big backlog though. As recently as a month ago sometimes the last two preps would be mostly empty while hooks were being promoted at a fast rate. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Umimmak, if the average was under 8 approvals per day, we wouldn't have such a significant backlog now. Only two months ago on February 21 we had 202 nominations, of which 89 were approved, and only one queue and few preps filled (with 30 noms in all); today we're at 279 nominations, of which 125 are approved, plus 80 approved nominations in queues and preps. (Including promoted hooks in the totals, that's 232 nominations/119 approved on February 21, and 359 nominations/205 approved on April 20.) So the rate of both nominations and approvals has exceeded 8 per day, on average, over the past two months—we're up 127 nominations and 86 approved in 59 days—and shows no signs of slowing down. Doing 9 nominations in one set per day would not reduce the backlog. (Yes, some days it can be 5, but some days it can be 14. It's the average over time that matters.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to make the switch to a 12-hour cycle, but the middle of the week seems an odd time to start. How about leaving it until Saturday, or maybe Monday? Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have filled the queues which has left four empty preps, if somebody wants to fill those we can start with a full queue page. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I think based on what we have, starting with Queue 2 being our first 12 hour set on Sunday would be a good idea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Come on, crack on. Days are purely arbitrary, time to double down. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know of any reason not to start immediately. We have five queues (a sixth was just promoted a few minutes ago) and five preps filled; that will cover the next five days. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know of any reason either. To wait until some arbitrary day of the week is basically stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
People of good will generally come to a sensible decision given a little encouragement. It's always worth a try, compared to the alternative. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Who cares what day it is, implement change now please. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The changeover from 24 hours to 12 hours is best implemented between 00:00 and 12:00 UTC. If it is implemented during the latter half of the UTC day then the bot will promote the next set immediately and we'll be off-cycle; we want it to promote at either 00:00 or 12:00. Admins, please take heed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done, thanks BlueMoonset. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2


The article has been tagged for insufficient lead. And what there is, is hardly encyclopedic:
Coffee production in China is a fast growing industry as cultivation and consumption both grow annually by leaps. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Muzzleflash has expanded the lead and the tag has been removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Becky

For this article about a recently controversial BLP, I advocate going with a neutral hook. Another reviewer disagrees. Other editors' input is welcome. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks too promotional to me. A list of his clients isn't a hook. And that Louis CK section is so undue, it doesn't belong on the MP. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Yoninah on this one, I think the article is now sufficiently balanced and the original hook is fine but the three proposed alts focus unduly on negative aspects. So I would just go with ALT0. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Queue 5

Template:Did you know nominations/2018 CONCACAF Champions League Finals has been added to the Special Occasions holding area for an April 25 showing, which means it needs to be added to Queue 5. (The nomination needs to be double-checked before promotion, as is customary.) Yoninah (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, not if we're about to increase the number of sets to two a day by sometime this weekend. We should perhaps hold off until the frequency is increased, so we can place it correctly; we wouldn't want it to run too soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah, it looks like the changeover to two sets a day has been done, and the hook ought to be put into Prep 4, which should ultimately hit the main page on April 25 at 12:00 UTC. Of course, since all six preps are packed to the gills, there won't be room to move one of the Prep 4 hooks to another prep until one of the preps has been promoted to queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
There's room now as I promoted a set, thanks for the note. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Yurika Endō

I normally don't make requests like this, but I'm requesting a quick review of this article. As suggested to me here last month, I had expanded it based on a userspace draft, and now I'm requesting both a review and for a history merge. Pinging Gatoclass and Ritchie333 as they are sysops and thus can do the history merge. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fátima Pinto

Hi there,

I'm having a bit of trouble reviewing this DYK?. It seems fine, but the user who created the article has been banned from editing the site. Is is still OK for it to go up, or should it be withdrawn?

ISD (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

ISD, there's definitely at least one thing wrong with the nomination: the hook, at 217 characters (spaces count as characters), exceeds DYK's maximum of 200 by a significant margin. Are you sure you've checked all the DYK criteria?
I don't think there's a hard and fast rule, but we typically don't pursue nominations by people who are serial sockpuppeteers, sneaking back under a new account while blocked. I'm not sure about this case, where this is the first incident—please note that they are blocked indefinitely, not banned (not the same thing), and indefinite blocks can be appealed and can end in hours or days, or last indefinitely. Perhaps we should wait to see how the appeals process plays out, or (as sometimes is the case) the nomination is adopted by someone else. SirEdimon is new to DYK this month, as best I can determine, though on Wikipedia for several years, and this is one of four nominations made to thus far (the first was made April 13); of the others, Andreia Norton has an even longer hook than this one, Silvia Rebelo has one overlong hook and one that qualifies, and Matilde Fidalgo's hook is a good length. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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