Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the
queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 09:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 9 hours ago() |
Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and rules | |
Introduction | WP:DYK |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Guidelines | WP:DYKCRIT |
Reviewer instructions | WP:DYKRI |
Nominations | |
Nominate an article | WP:DYKCNN |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Prepper instructions | WP:DYKPBI |
Admin instructions | WP:DYKAI |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
Userboxes | WP:DYKUBX |
Hall of Fame | WP:DYK/HoF |
List of users ... | |
... by nominations | WP:DYKNC |
... by promotions | WP:DYKPC |
Administrative | |
Scripts and bots | WP:DYKSB |
On the Main Page | |
To ping the DYK admins | {{ DYK admins}} |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Over the past month or so, several nominations have been made by student editors of articles about beetles. Several of them have already been rejected for not meeting the requirements, and in most cases the student editors have been unresponsive to reviews.
WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [1]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?
In addition, it might be a good idea to contact WikiEdu regarding this because the "WikiEdu nominations disproportionately being more likely to fail compared to other DYK nominations" thing has been a perennial issue for years. Discussions have taken place before where they promised to do something about it, but given these things still happen, it appears that hasn't been the case, and I'm wondering what else can we do regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There was a report at Errors concerning the
Censorship by copyright hook. The article had been orange-tagged (
Template:Globalize), with
Dilettante reporting this to Errors. Whilst the long list of examples is spread around the world, the prose deals mainly with North American issues. Posting this here rather than at Errors as this discussion gets archived, whilst Errors gets nuked when the main page changes at midnight UTC. I offer the pre-emptive comment that issues relating to this particular tag are hard to detect by the checking processes in place beyond the original review, as you have to critically read the whole article to detect it. If the original reviewer doesn't pick up on it, there's every chance that it slips through. For example, the
admin instructions have read article and copyedit
as an optional component.
Schwede
66 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 10 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 11. Because this list is so short after the backlog drive—which is great news!—I plan to add to it every couple of days. We have a total of 167 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 72 nominations that has decreased by 42 over the past 15 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi all
Please could I ask someone to look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war? The nomination was rejected with only the comment With four maintenance tags, this isn't going anywhere. Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines states that 'Rejected' should only be used for an "article is either completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible" which isn't true (I fixed the issue raised in 10 mins). Thanks very much, John Cummings ( talk) 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything in particular that's a problem here, but since we're putting a WP:BDP on the main page with an accusation of a crime, it wouldn't hurt to have some extra eyes on it. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The source says I must have listened to snippets of 100,000 songs
, which turned into the stronger he stated he "listened to snippets of 100,000 songs"
in the article, which in turn got turned into the even stronger statement Porter Robinson listened to excerpts of more than 100,000 songs
in wiki-voice for the hook. I think this needs to be rephrased.
RoySmith
(talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
As a result of a recent ERRORS discussion, a hook had to be pulled. This was no-one's fault in particular and there are bound to be false positives. One of the users pointed out that were hooks to be approved individually instead of by set, it would likely prevent many pulls and corrections. It would also reduce load on any individual sysop since they're not required to go through five hooks when approving. Instead, they may approve as many or as few as they'd like when they wish to work on this.
I'm posting this here because ERRORS gets wiped daily and the discussion is long gone. Pinging Amakuru and Schwede66 as people who weighed in. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I concur that we previously agreed that signing off individual hooks for the main page can be done. We do this very occasionally. I agree with Amakuru's thinking that it's worthwhile to change the process of how hooks make it to the main page. Hear me out.
In my view, it is worthwhile to redesign the process of signing off on hooks for the main page so that signing off on individual hooks becomes the default. The following are descriptions of how we go about this task today, how we could redesign it in the future, followed by thoughts on why the redesign would have benefits.
At present, the most common process is as follows:
What I suggest we do instead is as such (and where things change, I've emphasised the text as such):
The benefits that I see are as follows:
What do you think? Do the benefits that I've identified make sense to you? If so, is it thus worth the effort of redesigning the system? Schwede 66 04:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@ DYK admins: There are only a few queue sets left, and the number of unpromoted hooks is climbing up quickly. Let’s start promoting them before the schedule reverts to the 12 hour mark, please. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 21:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The hook says the only book that contained human skin
but the article just says it was the only one of the three books that were tested. For all we know, there are others that weren't found because they weren't tested. So this needs to be qualified with something like "believed to be".
RoySmith
(talk) 22:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The hook fact is sourced to https://sbsstar.net/, which doesn't strike me as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
... is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:DYK-nomination-wizard.js * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the
queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 09:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 9 hours ago() |
Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and rules | |
Introduction | WP:DYK |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Guidelines | WP:DYKCRIT |
Reviewer instructions | WP:DYKRI |
Nominations | |
Nominate an article | WP:DYKCNN |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Prepper instructions | WP:DYKPBI |
Admin instructions | WP:DYKAI |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
Userboxes | WP:DYKUBX |
Hall of Fame | WP:DYK/HoF |
List of users ... | |
... by nominations | WP:DYKNC |
... by promotions | WP:DYKPC |
Administrative | |
Scripts and bots | WP:DYKSB |
On the Main Page | |
To ping the DYK admins | {{ DYK admins}} |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Over the past month or so, several nominations have been made by student editors of articles about beetles. Several of them have already been rejected for not meeting the requirements, and in most cases the student editors have been unresponsive to reviews.
WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [1]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?
In addition, it might be a good idea to contact WikiEdu regarding this because the "WikiEdu nominations disproportionately being more likely to fail compared to other DYK nominations" thing has been a perennial issue for years. Discussions have taken place before where they promised to do something about it, but given these things still happen, it appears that hasn't been the case, and I'm wondering what else can we do regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There was a report at Errors concerning the
Censorship by copyright hook. The article had been orange-tagged (
Template:Globalize), with
Dilettante reporting this to Errors. Whilst the long list of examples is spread around the world, the prose deals mainly with North American issues. Posting this here rather than at Errors as this discussion gets archived, whilst Errors gets nuked when the main page changes at midnight UTC. I offer the pre-emptive comment that issues relating to this particular tag are hard to detect by the checking processes in place beyond the original review, as you have to critically read the whole article to detect it. If the original reviewer doesn't pick up on it, there's every chance that it slips through. For example, the
admin instructions have read article and copyedit
as an optional component.
Schwede
66 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 10 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 11. Because this list is so short after the backlog drive—which is great news!—I plan to add to it every couple of days. We have a total of 167 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 72 nominations that has decreased by 42 over the past 15 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi all
Please could I ask someone to look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war? The nomination was rejected with only the comment With four maintenance tags, this isn't going anywhere. Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines states that 'Rejected' should only be used for an "article is either completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible" which isn't true (I fixed the issue raised in 10 mins). Thanks very much, John Cummings ( talk) 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything in particular that's a problem here, but since we're putting a WP:BDP on the main page with an accusation of a crime, it wouldn't hurt to have some extra eyes on it. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
The source says I must have listened to snippets of 100,000 songs
, which turned into the stronger he stated he "listened to snippets of 100,000 songs"
in the article, which in turn got turned into the even stronger statement Porter Robinson listened to excerpts of more than 100,000 songs
in wiki-voice for the hook. I think this needs to be rephrased.
RoySmith
(talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
As a result of a recent ERRORS discussion, a hook had to be pulled. This was no-one's fault in particular and there are bound to be false positives. One of the users pointed out that were hooks to be approved individually instead of by set, it would likely prevent many pulls and corrections. It would also reduce load on any individual sysop since they're not required to go through five hooks when approving. Instead, they may approve as many or as few as they'd like when they wish to work on this.
I'm posting this here because ERRORS gets wiped daily and the discussion is long gone. Pinging Amakuru and Schwede66 as people who weighed in. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I concur that we previously agreed that signing off individual hooks for the main page can be done. We do this very occasionally. I agree with Amakuru's thinking that it's worthwhile to change the process of how hooks make it to the main page. Hear me out.
In my view, it is worthwhile to redesign the process of signing off on hooks for the main page so that signing off on individual hooks becomes the default. The following are descriptions of how we go about this task today, how we could redesign it in the future, followed by thoughts on why the redesign would have benefits.
At present, the most common process is as follows:
What I suggest we do instead is as such (and where things change, I've emphasised the text as such):
The benefits that I see are as follows:
What do you think? Do the benefits that I've identified make sense to you? If so, is it thus worth the effort of redesigning the system? Schwede 66 04:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@ DYK admins: There are only a few queue sets left, and the number of unpromoted hooks is climbing up quickly. Let’s start promoting them before the schedule reverts to the 12 hour mark, please. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 21:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The hook says the only book that contained human skin
but the article just says it was the only one of the three books that were tested. For all we know, there are others that weren't found because they weren't tested. So this needs to be qualified with something like "believed to be".
RoySmith
(talk) 22:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The hook fact is sourced to https://sbsstar.net/, which doesn't strike me as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
... is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:DYK-nomination-wizard.js * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)