Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
Jump to: navigation, search

"Did you know...?" template
Queue T:DYK/Q
Nominations T:TDYK
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA

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.

Loophole in the DYK-GA criteria[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary - At the very least we need to close the loophole in DYK rules that allows the GA reviewer to also be the DYK nominator. Too easy to game the system, regardless of the intent on this one. I feel bad about this, but I don't think this article received a GA review in accordance with GA criteria, and it's not ready for DYK. But all our rules say is, "Articles designated as Good articles within the past seven days, regardless of whether they were expanded, are also eligible." — Maile (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see what's wrong with nominating the DYK. Reviewing the DYK, that's another story. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Crisco: I don't see anything wrong with the GA reviewer nominating an article, but there is a loophole in that the DYK review should be by someone other than the GA reviewer, and be done independently of the GA review, but the rules don't say this. Given the number of DYK reviews that have resulted in a Good Article reassessment, and the article being delisted as a GA (and thus losing DYK eligibility), it's clear we need different reviewers for GA and DYK, since GA reviewers do get it wrong. (We have one nomination about to be reassessed, and it looks like the one here is another candidate for GAR.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ohhhh...until you mentioned this, never occurred to me that GA reviewer could also be DYK reviewer by DYK's lack of specifics on that. GA on DYK can be an asset, but there needs to be checks and balances written into the system. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with BMS and C. EEng (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with BMS, C and EE. Harrias talk 08:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
      • So, if we're all agreed, should I add a phrase to the rules that says that the GA reviewer cannot in turn be the DYK reviewer? I think WP:DYKSG#H2 would be the best place, if so. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with everybody. EEng (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with adding the phrase to the rules. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Still women's month[edit]

We can be proud that more than 100 women have been shown already on the Main page or are prepared! However: many more need a review, and some articles are perhaps not yet written. Last year we had to postpone some to April, - let's try to do better this year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

To be more precise: as I write this, more than 50 nominations have not yet appeared, and preps are loaded until 26 March. Assuming all noms pass, we could fill those five remaining days with almost only women, - or shuffle some in the sets for the next 3 days. Special case: I nominated Cläre Jung, finding out then (late) that she died 25 March, - it would make some sense to show her then, but would first need a review ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: - If we can get Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance of Women Directors to close early, I can put in a DYK for that. Otherwise, if it closes on time, even as "keep", it'll miss the 7 day window. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
We already have too many, and I will also add one more ;) - If my math is right we would need 5 per set to accommodate just those already nominated. Another set was filled since I wrote with "only" 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie333, you can certainly nominate the article now; indeed, you'll need to by March 25 in any case. There's nothing to prevent a nomination while the article's at AfD, though the review cannot be completed until after the AfD is concluded. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

24 March update: impressive 106 articles have appeared, 20 are in prep, 17 are reviewed, 7 are under review, 20 are nominated, - we will again not accommodate all in March, but let's see what we can do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

25 March update: 115 articles have appeared, 20 are in prep, 10 are reviewed, 11 are under review, 17 are nominated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

26 March update: 122 articles have appeared, 17 are in prep, 13 are reviewed, 10 are under review, 16 are nominated, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

27 March update: 125 articles have appeared, 16 are in prep, 12 are reviewed, 12 are under review, 14 are nominated,

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 39 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 20 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 19 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 66 nominations are approved, leaving 266 of 332 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the two from December 2014 and four from January 2015 would be especially welcome.

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) 05:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No credits[edit]

I just happened to notice that my joint DYK nomination for Beroe cucumis and Bolinopsis infundibulum is currently on the mainpage but that the credits on the article talk pages and my talk page are missing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I think it's because when the prep set was assembled, a "nompage" rather than a "subpage" field was added to the two DYKmake templates (the Bolinopsis definitely needed a subpage field). When ultimately promoted to the main page, the bot didn't know how to process them. Allen3, would you know how to get these DYK credits to each of the articles, and both to Cwmhiraeth, and can you process them? If not, I can try to do it by hand, though I'd be guessing at all the steps. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It should be technically possible to add corrected DYKmake templates to an upcoming set. My understanding is that this will cause the bot to generate credits but will also generate a message at User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors because the bot will be unable to find the corresponding hook. Overall, it is probably easier to issue the appropriate credits manually. I have taken the liberty to do so. --Allen3 talk 21:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Allen3. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for sorting that out. I always wondered what the subpage fields of some credit templates were for. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The subpage field should be added to every DYKmake where the article name (first field after "DYKmake") is not identical to the "DYK nompage links" template's "nompage=" field contents (which is the name of the nomination template). If the article has been moved, the DYKmake will need a subpage field; similarly, multi-article nominations will need subpage fields for at least the second through nth articles (and maybe the first). If the article name contains non-alphanumeric characters, a subpage field may be needed that translates those characters (this is usually done automatically when the nomination template is generated.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification bot[edit]

A year ago, this project approved a bot to notify editors if someone else nominated their article for DYK. Approved implementation is close at hand. Details Here. It's been a long road... — Maile (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Finding my reviews[edit]

Is there a way to use my Contributions filters to find the DYK's I've worked on? I work here in bursts, so it's difficult to find my QPQs weeks later when I post a new article. Is there any sort of shortcut? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I always give the edit summary "review" (possibly with other content) when I do a DYK review. This means I can use the edit summary search tool to search for "review" in the "Template" namespace. So this is a list of all my DYK reviews. This method finds three DYK reviews for you; if you use a different summary it won't work, of course. Relentlessly (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I list them on my user page, look under "For others", with a link to the review as long they didn't appear, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Maury, you could try selecting "Template" using the "Namespaces" selector on the Contributions page. It will give you all of the template edits you've made, but if the bulk of your template work is DYK, then it will show you your nomination and review edits together, with maybe some extra non-DYK stuff. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Start using edit summaries! Harrias talk 07:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BM, that's the solution. I tried Template Talk, but didn't bother trying just the Template selection! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Time sensitive hook[edit]

I just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Radner, about the singer Maria Radner who was killed in the Germanwings plane crash, which is the headline of every major news site right now. The prep areas are filled all the way to the end of March. Can we expedite this hook, so it can be shown before the news becomes old (and before the end of the Women's History Month)? -Zanhe (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but at the moment ref #3 is broken, and the lead is woefully short. Harrias talk 18:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed the broken ref. Wuerzele and Gerda Arendt are probably more qualified than me to write a lead that adequately summarizes the article. -Zanhe (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have always thought it a mistake to rush things through because they're currently in the news. Women's History Month notwithstanding, this will be just as good a nom after the article's had a little time to develop. The suggestion (as seen on the nom page) that the hook term the crash "tragic" is a good example of why this kind of rush is a bad idea. EEng (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Zanhe I completely agree with EEng that there's no rush for publishing this in DYK. the article can ripen and settle as more info is published on the crash and maybe on her. Harrias I can work on the lead, provided that folks find the subject notable above the WP:1E objection of a user on its talk page. (Did you notice that, Zanhe?) I dont understand though, EEng, why my suggestion to add the word tragic "is a good example of why rushing is a bad idea". The event's tragedy is not time sensitive and it is completely independent of when or if DYK is published. please let me know.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Calling something a tragedy is a bit WP:EDITORIAL-ish (though sometimes an event comes to be known as "The X Tragedy" or whatever, in which case we would use that name as a formality). EEng (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The WP:1E objection is completely irrelevant for DYK. If someone doesn't think it is notable, they should open an AfD. At that point, the DYK would be suspended until the outcome has been determined, but DYK is not the forum to decide notability. Harrias talk 20:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think she is notable, having sung at the MET, recorded, sung with notable conductors internationally. I am sure she would not have an article if she had not died, but that's a different aspect. Many notable people don't have an article yet. There is no rush for this to appear, and no need to add "tragic". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Osama bin Laden (elephant). April Fool's Day. 7&6=thirteen () 12:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Prep 3[edit]

The hook for Viktor does not accurately state what's in the article, and also reflects negatively on a living person (Gérard Depardieu). Both reviews being quoted are panning the film, not praising it, and pointing to Depardieu's obesity as a laughable film element. I think the hook should be replaced with something else. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Negative or not, the hook reflects what most sources say about the film, as sadly almost every reviewer who panned the film made note of Depardieu having put on too much weigh to be believable as an action hero.
  1. The Detroit News says " In his younger days, Depardieu had a burly charm, but the dude is 65 now and has to weigh 300 pounds. He looks ludicrous in action sequences."[1]
  2. The Hollywood Reporter says "Depardieu, age 65 and looking like he can barely move due to his massive girth..." [2]
  3. San Francisco Weekly states "The 66-year-old Depardieu was no action hero even in his prime, and as his girth now rivals Paul Masson-era Orson Welles, we're meant to believe he strikes fear into his enemies".[3]
  4. Film Journal International writes of the film's weak points:"...sadly, the problem is Depardieu, who lumbers through the film looking as though he's tormented by indigestion rather than a lust for vengeance."[4]
  5. The Los Angeles Times writes "the film's corpulent, 65-year-old star, Gérard Depardieu, play a brash killing machine who beds the likes of the gorgeous Elizabeth Hurley is truly like entering some cinematic Bizarro world. Think Charles Durning as Dirty Harry.[5]
  6. However, Sud-Ouest states that it was very popular in France.[6]
  7. and Daily Mail reports it was a spectacular flop in the US.[7]
  8. and Voici agrees telling it it was loved in France and panned in the US.[8]
I am open to this being temporarily pulled from prep and will await suggestions for alternate hooks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Returning to noms area. Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks right back Yoninah. Face-smile.svg Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Error with DYK credits[edit]

I didn't get a DYK credit for Coal Creek (Susquehanna River). Everyone who did get a DYK credit with the most recent batch seems to have been credited for Kayla Mueller. Possibly an error with DYKUpdateBot? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

How strange. It's now delivered the correct DYK credits to me and three other people, but not to anyone else. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There is maintenance occurring on labs that is probably to blame. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Labs is going to be slow additional details. After a check of the bot's edit history, it looks like all the credits were issued but there was a time gap between 00:06 and 00:20 (UTC) when the bot made no edits. --Allen3 talk 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)