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
→‎Christmas preps: crossing out
→‎Christmas preps: bigger is better
Line 161: Line 161:
:A reviewer is needed to check the ALT hooks on one Christmas nomination: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a]]. It should be fairly easy to check. Many thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
:A reviewer is needed to check the ALT hooks on one Christmas nomination: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a]]. It should be fairly easy to check. Many thanks. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
::I have rushed in where angels fear to tread, and have approved ALT6 (and tweaked it). [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 19:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
::I have rushed in where angels fear to tread, and have approved ALT6 (and tweaked it). [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 19:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
[[File:Magnificent_(740612700).jpg|thumb|Magnifi-cat]]
[[File:Magnificent_(740612700).jpg|600px|thumb|Magnified cat]]
:::Now we need someone to promote the hook to prep for Christmas Day before the preps fill up. (Neither of us can, since we are involved.) [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Now we need someone to promote the hook to prep for Christmas Day before the preps fill up. (Neither of us can, since we are involved.) [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


Revision as of 02:04, 24 December 2014

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.

Informal tracking of the stats

Unhide to see a few months' history of available hooks and backlog size

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/nom stats

Another corporate CEO ready for grilling

Ready for grilling, sir!
Guineas not ready for grilling

He's well-"Prepped" for the witness stand. Yum! EEng (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC) DYK neophytes may look here [1] for a hint.[reply]

Forty Guineas buys a lot of hamburgers, even in Covent Garden!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your turn to grill the witness, counselor!

No need to mock! I think that hook is very "punchy". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

I've compiled a new set of the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, over half of which have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 4 that have been waiting for over six weeks, the second has 19 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 15 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 83 nominations are approved, leaving 215 of 298 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over six weeks:

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) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queue: admin instructions

@TParis, JohnCD, and Waggers: We've been having issues with late updates to the DYK section on the main page recently, due to a lack of admin attention. One of the problems highlighted was that people didn't know what to do for the queue update. After scrounging around I found some instructions, but they haven't been updated since DYKUpdateBot was introduced. So I've tried to put together a general to-do list below:

RD and no ongoing

Live

Sandbox

  • Nominate an article

    • Ongoing and no RD

    Live

    Sandbox

  • Nominate an article

    • Ongoing and RD

    Live

    Sandbox

    No ongoing or RD

    Live

    Sandbox

  • Nominate an article

    • The actual draft can be found here. If anyone wants to add to or make corrections, feel free. I'd appreciate it if a regular DYK admin, @Crisco 1492, Casliber, and HJ Mitchell: could once over this before it's posted over at T:DYK/Q and WP:AN. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh, that's so quick and uncomplicated I can hardly believe we have have trouble getting those lazy admins to do it. EEng (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also highly problematic, because it's pre-bot and the intro and some of the steps are inappropriate since what's really wanted is to move a set from prep to queue. I've struck the 12-hour wait, since that's irrelevant, and made some other quick adjustments; queues can be loaded at any time, and the bot moves them when the time is right (which could be right away if the main page is overdue for an update). BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, can only work with what I have. I've tried to hack redundant stuff off the old guide, though I'm not familiar with it all so I might miss some. If you want to simplify it further, go on ahead. Each prep actually has instructions at the bottom but I take it that's just too confusing. Fuebaey (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always found it an exceptionally simple process. It is just extremely time-consuming to re-check all the article comply with all the guidelines. Harrias talk 15:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the fact that someone wrote something in itself a justification to use it as a hook?

    See Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. The author of the Cronica Walliae wrote a number of things. A few of these are considered today to by mythical or, in the case of King Arthur's alleged grave, a medieval hoax. I'd suggested an alternative hook which was accepted, then rejected when the author of the article. User:Doug Coldwell, removed the text (now reinserted by me and slightly edited by him). He's now added several other alternative hooks, most of which push supposed voyages of the legendary Prince Madoc to America, a subject upon which Llwyd, who wrote the Cronica, noted " it is a tale which in the retelling ‘the commen people do use in distance of place and leingth of tyme rather to augment than to dyminish’. Coldwell and User:7&6=thirteen argue that there should be no suggestion in the hook that there is any doubt about the voyage on what seems to be the grounds that only what Llywd actually wrote should be included, User:Elaqueate and I disagree. Is there any precedent or common practice for this sort of issue? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought it a cleaner hook. Hard to suggest that it has been the subject of debate is hard to fit into 200 characters. That hooks are sometimes misleading (or a diversion) has been used as a criterion for their hookiness. Do you have a suggestion, as this has been the subject of innumerable debates. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something like "Did you know...the Cronica Walliae popularised a legend that the Welsh discovered America in about 1170, a tale used to justify English encroachments on the territory of Spanish America?" __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It gives more context, demonstrates significance, and shows how scholars perceive it today.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one of the alternate hooks already - as I submitted it as ALT7 for User:Elaqueate.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now did delivering fresh drinking water to water-poor nations promote world peace, is another question. BUT the fact that he said (wrote) this, set the precedent that DYKs can be based on this premise.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Historiography supports User:Doug Coldwell's hypothesis. Who said what, when and why does matter. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you are arguing that all previous hooks are good, one example doesn't show you are right. Who said what, when and why matters at times, but not for everything everyone said, and some things need to be presented in context. NOR applies here as does NPOV. A hook has to meet our policies. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example is Preparation (principle). Robert Louis Stevenson said that politics is a profession for which no preparation is necessary = and was the basis for the DYK. I think maybe there would be a few politicians that would disagree with this, however that is another issue. This shows this is the policy.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So the standard for hooks are that they must either 1) Be established facts, 2) Be definite facts, or 3) Be any type of claim anyone has ever said, even if it's a mistake, fraud, lie, error, or anything at all. The standard has to be better than this. Otherwise we're making the "established fact" standard absolutely redundant and powerless. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is ridiculous. Why would anyone think that it was remotely appropriate to word a hook in a way that misled our readers into thinking that there was historical evidence that a figure from folklore discovered America? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth - Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Humphrey Llwyd isn't a remotely reliable source for history, your comment is completely and utterly irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Professor Ieuan M. Williams and the University of Wales thought that he was and published a 290 page book to show that. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are going to claim that Prof Williams considers Llwyd's account of Madoc to be historically accurate, you will have to provide a better source than a Google Books link that shows no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did delivering fresh drinking water to water-poor nations promote world peace? I don't know, however someone wrote this and it was the basis for a DYK that received 30,000 views that had no objection of the fact of the utterance.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That many people are likely to see the claim, and many people are likely to not click through to see any further historical context, are incredibly good reasons, all by themselves, to not include the claim by itself, or in a potentially misleading way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert Louis Stevenson said that politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary seems to be a quote most people agree was said with this 3,000,000 Google search result. = a premise for a DYK. However a few politicians might disagree with the quote. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a good example of an IAR exception, as it's a famous fictional writer making an obvious humorous over-generalization about politics. A claim from an obscure Elizabethan manuscript, labelled historical, certainly isn't the same type of thing. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a platform for the promotion of pseudohistorical fairy tales. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Christmas

    This: Template:Did you know nominations/Madonna of the Book (Botticelli) was requested for Dec 24 or 25. I approved ALT4. Can someone promote it to an appropriate queue? It'd be great leading hook for that timeframe. Thank you. HalfGig talk 04:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Best way to ensure this is to put it in the Christmas holding area at the bottom of the nominations page. Harrias talk 11:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ll give that a shot. I'm surprised one didn't already exist. HalfGig talk 12:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)...Actually it is already there but doesn't show in the index at the top of the page for some reason. HalfGig talk 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Christmas preps

    Just a note that preps 3 and 4 look like being the prime queues for Christmas Day hooks, and preps 1 and 2 will run on Christmas Day in eastern Asia and Oceania. Prep 1 is the next to be filled. That said, it doesn't look like we have many Christmas Day hooks in the holding area: we should prioritise any Christmas related hooks without review. Harrias talk 07:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A reviewer is needed to check the ALT hooks on one Christmas nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. It should be fairly easy to check. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rushed in where angels fear to tread, and have approved ALT6 (and tweaked it). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Magnified cat
    Now we need someone to promote the hook to prep for Christmas Day before the preps fill up. (Neither of us can, since we are involved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it helps to know that the Magnificat was sung in Leipzig on two of the three days of Christmas, and Germany still has two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Hook promoted to Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What about this one: Template:Did you know nominations/Sony Pictures Entertainment hack? --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Somehow the subject matter doesn't fit with the feel-good hooks running in the Christmas preps. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ... --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi (Fra Angelico and Filippo Lippi)

    For some reason the template has misfunctioned here; I can't see why. Also it is a late Xmas submission. Now listed at 21 December. I'd be grateful if someone could sort this out. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed, hook was not properly formatted. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, the problem was that you forgot the closing brackets on the article link. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This nomination has now been approved and can hopefully appear on Christmas Day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done: I promoted it to prep 2, along with the image, and made it the main hook. Grumpy Cat got moved to second place and lost the picture. (Now that's something to be grumpy about.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback requested

    Since I'm not a regular DYK nominator or reviewer, I would appreciate some feedback from a very experienced reviewer who knows the rules inside and out. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected edit request on 23 December 2014

    Item 1, Boticelli needs to be corrected to Botticelli.

    Awien (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --Allen3 talk 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=639417160"