Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 180: Line 180:
:::You do not have a talent for "getting the encyclopedia right" because that requires many hands, whereas you regularly offend people so they don't want to participate. You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"{{mdashb}}go soak your head, will you?
:::You do not have a talent for "getting the encyclopedia right" because that requires many hands, whereas you regularly offend people so they don't want to participate. You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"{{mdashb}}go soak your head, will you?
:::I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into{{mdashb}}the word ''toxic'' comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
:::I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into{{mdashb}}the word ''toxic'' comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
::::All I can say to that is a heartfelt ''amen''. I think the overwhelming majority of people here would agree with you. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman|talk]]) 13:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


==University of Michigan Athletics==
==University of Michigan Athletics==

Revision as of 13:11, 15 May 2015

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


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



This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.

8 May

I asked at TFA what would be a good article to mark the end of World War II, - no article was found. I wrote one which I think would be suitable for DYK that day but it needs a review first, Missa Dona nobis pacem (1948), - and please let's look for others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, do you mean Victory in Europe Day as the end of WWII day? Because the war with Japan ended in September. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being in Europe, that's what we remember, - sorry for sloppy language ;) - The hook is approved now, but the preps are full. Could it be exchanged for another one "by me" in there, Ray Barra? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English text

May I again remind colleagues to use {{Lang}} when including non-English text in hooks, like this, for the important reasons explained in the template's documentation? We need to get this right, especially on such a high-profile page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little rule-let [1]. EEng (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't clutter up the DYK rules with non-DYK-specific rules. We already have litterally millions of DYK-specific rules. I suppose we could make a page listing some general Wikipedia rules and guidelines which should be observed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with repeating general WP stuff that comes up a lot in hooks and is frequently overlooked. They should not be on a separate page -- too many of those at DYK already. I stuffed this into the "C-series" of "rules" because I couldn't see where else to put it. EEng (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is nearly used up and about to be archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 24 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 12 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent update, 65 nominations are approved, leaving 265 of 330 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest.

Over one month:

Also needing review:

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) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attacked and killed

my edit Art LaPella (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the discussion came to the same conclusion. Art LaPella (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have pulled the hook for now as I have some questions about its accuracy, as it isn't clear that the number attacked was eight or that they were all atheists - some are just described in the article as "secularists" which is not the same thing. Normally I wouldn't do this but I just don't have time to thoroughly check the sources right now, it will have to wait until tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review of a couple of the sources indicates that at least two of these individuals were attacked for their political views, not because they were "atheists", so it's clear to me at this point that there can be no quick return of this nom to the queue until the accuracy of the article has been thoroughly checked. Gatoclass (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERRORS

I know none of you like to hear from me, but right now we're seeing something like one or two errors per day from DYK at WP:ERRORS. Can you guys pick up simple things like dab links and diacritics and English variations please? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

A set is missing in the archive, the one in the history of 8 May, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That set ran about 16 hours, and was taken off the main page at around 02:53 on May 9 (the bot finished up at 02:56, but apparently without doing the archive step). I think an admin is needed to take care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification error

Today, I got a notice of a DYK nomination [2] for a nom from 15 May 2014 which was withdrawn later that day. It was delivered by APersonBot run by User:APerson. Not sure what's going on here. A one-off glitch? Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never, don't you think? EEng (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore, yeah, sorry about that - the bot doesn't scan the language of the discussion to see whether it should send off a notification (such a feature being a bit hard to program). Instead, it relies on whether the nomination subpage is a member of the categories for passed or failed nominations, and since this nom was never hatted, there was no way for the bot to know. I've just hatted the Trevor Corry nom, and I try to visit nom pages that the bot gives weird errors on. TL;DR won't happen again for this nomination. APerson (talk!) 20:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, APerson. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with hook in Queue about to hit the Main Page

There are problems with the last hook of Queue 6: ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?

The article says no such thing. According to the article, "The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had", which is not even close to what the hook says.

The source, which is a four-sentence blog entry, says "Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done", which is a little closer, but still not good enough to support what the hook says.

More minor issues: a newspaper can't "think", and the Queue's lead hook is about a UK politician and it would be better not to have another in the same set.

The hook was proposed by Ritchie333, who also reviewed and approved the nomination. This is why one shouldn't review one's own hooks.

The Queue is set to hit the Main Page in about 20 minutes, so please take care of this problem quickly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without reviewing the problem myself, posted to WP:Main Page/Errors and several admins pinged. EEng (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull it. I'll go write 100 lines saying "I must not be funny on the main page". To be fair, there were 2 ALTs proposed, I asked the prep builder to choose, and also pinged EEng for a second opinion at the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not an attempt to "be funny on the main page". It's perfectly fine to have a funny hook as long as you comply with the DYK rules. And to be even more fair, I'd like to point out that your attempted ping of EEng did not appear to be for a second opinion about the article or any existing hook; it appears to be merely soliciting a funnier hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed my Notifications log and it's not in there (though you clearly made it -- I've seen people discussing this phenomenon). So I'm off the hook, thank God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about one of the other hooks instead of pulling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My original hook said what has been suggested here, about the sliced bread over the bread roll. If this ever goes back up, consider this hook or another. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The six minutes on the Main Page should not prevent this from getting another shot. The author should not be penalized for a bad hook proposed and approved by a reviewer as part of a, frankly, horrible review. I don't understand the reviewer's dismissal of the original hook as "misleading". That hook, unlike the reviewer's hook suggestion, seems to accurately say what both the article and the source say. (However, the source is that same four-sentence blog entry, so I'll leave it to the new reviewer to evaluate that.) The "review" was woefully incomplete. Other than dismissing an apparently correct hook and suggesting and approving an incorrect one, the only thing mentioned as being reviewed was "Article is brand new". All around, a truly horrible excuse for a review. I've reinstated the nomination, and it will require a full, actual review from a competent reviewer. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild card entry?

Can a did you know have a wild card entry? Charlotte, the baby monkey, has gained lot of attention, can any news by the royal family can be there at any time
117.198.184.5 (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be as predicted (not promoting crystal ball):
I assume the above refers to this news story but please note that DYK is for highlighting new or improved articles. A hook without an article defeats the purpose of this project. I think your best bet is to create a 1,500 character article for the park the monkey lives in, mention the above fact, and then nominate it for DYK. Fuebaey (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a notability problem -- see WP:Notability (monkeys). EEng (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: It is a red link.
117.217.114.126 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking with the link -- there's no notability guideline for monkeys. But I think there really is a notability problem here, and I can't tell what you're proposing with respect to DYK. EEng (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Sliding bookcase, now in Queue 5

Is it just me, or does anyone else agree that this article is nothing more than a collection of random examples, with no sources directly addressing the subject itself in any significant way? EEng (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The more the the the better?

Now in Queue 5:

... that the terrorist attack carried out in Mostar in 1997 by the al-Qaeda remains the most serious terrorist attack in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

"the al-Qaeda"??? Really??? Isn't this the preoccupation beyond the pale now? EEng (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The worst is "the hoi polloi". Too many people do that. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Especially the hoi polloi. EEng (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the redundant repetition (not even the above, "terrorist attack" is also mentioned twice) and the vague term "serious", the article does not actually say it was carried out by al-Qaeda. "Linked with" and "carried out by" are two very different things. Fuebaey (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there non-serious terrorist attacks? EEng (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly should have been "deadliest". But then you DYKers know best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just get it right each time before it's posted to the main page? Looks like quality of DYK is heading south right now. Any one of you give a toss about that? Avoid redirects, avoid disambiguations, avoid grammar fails, pay attention to English variations. That stuff is simple; for you Americans, let's call it DYK 101. Please try harder, and (as you have done with me) avoid chasing people away who are trying to help stop making DYK the regular laughing stock of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one would be happy to see you helping out again, but please for God's sake give the bitter denunciations a rest. You have an amazing talent for alienating people, with the result that they don't attend to your real message. EEng (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have many amazing talents. Getting the encyclopedia right is one of them. I'll ask nicely. Please stop sending errors to the main page guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have a talent for "getting the encyclopedia right" because that requires many hands, whereas you regularly offend people so they don't want to participate. You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"‍—‌go soak your head, will you?
I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into‍—‌the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. EEng (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say to that is a heartfelt amen. I think the overwhelming majority of people here would agree with you. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Athletics

Is there an article about how many times blurbs about University of Michigan sports have occurred on DYK? If not there surely should be. Saratoga Sam (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First comes the article about how many times blurbs about creeks and streams in Pennsylvania have appeared. EEng (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Some people on the main page don't like the formatting of the Did you know section, and have proposed an alternate wording and are looking for a bold admin. See/participate in this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at considerable length, but I can't find the archive to reference it. Harrias talk 06:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • If this particular problem was discussed before, I missed it. As of now, what we have at DYK is this:


Did you know…

From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:

... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?


Those who feel that the “From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:” disrupts the sentence “Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?” suggest that any of the following flows better / avoids fracturing the syntax:


Did you know…

... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content


From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content

Did you know…

... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?


Did you know…

... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

... that the above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content?


As we know, very few people participate in discussion concerning the Main Page, but of those who have voiced an opinion, six say the present sequence is broke and needs to be fixed, two say it ain’t broke.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the previous discussion either, but I know it happened because I was part of it and made the same suggestions then. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=662443669"