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
→Extra dot: Removed, thanks
Line 359: Line 359:
{{queue|5}}: the [[The Saguache Crescent]] hook has an extra dot behind the "?", --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
{{queue|5}}: the [[The Saguache Crescent]] hook has an extra dot behind the "?", --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
:Removed, thanks. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
:Removed, thanks. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

== Current DYK hook on Main Page is confusing ==

Hello, it may be just me, but the current hook about the [[Lombardi Grand Prix]] is very confusing. Here's the current text:

:''...that if not for a tank accident in Cyprus, the Lombardi Grand Prix (pictured) would have probably lasted longer?''

For anyone who doesn't know it's a car (I would guess the majority of readers have never even heard of this particular model), it firstly makes sense to assume the hook is about a Grand Prix race, as that is the more commonly used appearance of this term. Therefore it also seems to sound as if a race was cut short because of a tank... While there is a photo, that could just be a photo of a car that took part in the race, at a casual glance of the thumbnail.

I know it's now on the main page, and probably too late to suggest an alternative, but I think it should be changed to clarify that due to the death of the major buyer the car ceased to be manufactured. [[User:HowardBerry|Howie]] [[User talk:HowardBerry|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 22:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:05, 4 March 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.

stats.grok.se replaced with wikiviewstats

Ktr101 has changed the DYK templates to link to the WMF labs Wikiviewstats, rather than the stats.grok.se it has used for ages (diff 1, diff2). I have reverted until a consensus can be reached. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: should we use wikiviewstats instead of stats.grok.se?

Support

  1. Support Per reasons outlined below, and only if we can use both sites so that everyone wins in the end. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose using this new tool. Although it is admittedly more attractive and easy on the eyes, and has a few nice features, for the point of record keeping it has one huge, fundamental flaw: it does not have archives of views prior to November 2013 and, last I checked, it purges its archive of page views periodically. This means that any and all links will be dead within 5 months, rendering this aspect of DYK record keeping useless. Until wikiviewstats supports archives with no time limit, I don't think we should use it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Conditional Oppose Please refer to Village Pump. Yeah, the new one is cool looking. There are issues with it, as mentioned on the VP discussion. There should have been consensus before the switch over happened. Wouldn't it be better to wait until bugs are worked out, and until (when and if) it goes site-wide? — Maile (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Crisco 1492. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose – per Crisco. Having a steady, reliable and constant flow of stats that'll be gone in just a few months does not outweigh a proper archive system that occasionally crashes from time to time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • The reason I changed it was because of the few times that it had crashed prior to when I had created it, and was relying on it to check page views for some of my articles. Most likely, the person expanding the article is not looking for long-term trends in page views so, before a certain date, but the WMF site does allow for long-term trends, beyond stats.grok.se's 90 days. Additionally, the labs site does give many long term trends, although I have noticed that it depends on the page. Another reason that I swapped it out with Henrik's tool is that his page crashes on certain days, whereas the tools site does not, which allows for a more reliable site in the long-run. If people would be up for it, maybe we could link to both the WMF site and Henrik's site in the template, so that people are able to get the best of both worlds, per se. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy question. I just checked on Louis Braille which ran Feb 23.
  • Henrik's tool says 1,275 views. You can click on the bar and get an exact count.
  • WikiViewStats for Louis Braille on Feb 23 seems to have the bar in the graph at 500 . No exact count, just a guestimate from where the bar is. Nothing seems clickable. But there's a wide difference between 1,275 and 500.
  • I can't seem to copy the URL from Wiki ViewStats and paste it to a talk page, because the namespace doesn't appear in the URL. That in itself is counter to what is required to post a DYK on Stats. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on how you run it. If you select "30 days" for Louis Braille, it gives you stats Jan 25-Feb 24. The Feb 23 has the bar at 500. Feb 24 is probably counting by the hour, because it's very low, just above 150. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

@Crisco 1492: What do you think about this mockup? We can change the links around as others wish, but it's just a mockup for now for testing everything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66:, @IronGargoyle:, and @Bloom6132:, you might be interested in this resolution. If you guys have any issues with the name that I provided for the old site, please go ahead and change it, as two sites are better than one at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with it as long as we retain the information and links. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 23 closing of RFC on QPQ for non self noms

I didn't see anything here that the RFC proposed by Matty.007 closed on Feb 23, 2014, but it did. You can look for yourself, but the only thing that "passed" was this

The fifth proposal is to have a bot "notify an editor if an article they had created/expanded was nominated for DYK by someone else". This was uniformly supported. This proposal (although not strictly an amendment to policy) has passed, and a bot request should be filed on this basis. bd2412 T 00:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So, perhaps someone should file a bot request. How about a bot that just automatically places a copy of any newly created nomination template, when the nominator is not the creator, on the article creator's talk page? That would that care of that. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a message by Armbrust in this section, so I placed a request at the bot request page (although if anyone is good with bots...) Thanks, Matty.007 19:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Matty.007. I added some info at the bot request that I thought might help. Let's hope somebody creates a bot. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A grovelling request

Whilst I understand there is no obligation for anyone to do so or feel compelled to do so, I would be extremely grateful if a kindly editor could review my DYK nom's for County Wildlife Site and Stratton Park Moated Enclosure before the 26th that'd be great, as this is when the first round of the WikiCup closes. Thank-you! </grovel> Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the editors involved, this is now complete - I appreciate it. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we missed the DYK Update

I don't think we did the DYK update, and the bot hasn't told us we missed it. I believe the set on the main page has been there more than 8 hours. — Maile (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Queue 1 with the hook set that Maile created. I'm hoping the UpdateBot will stop by soon and update the main page. If not, we can do a manual update. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hi, I have (another!) proposal: how about if you review an article over 2,500 characters, it counts as 2 QPQs? For each 2,500 it goes up, it is another QPQ. For example, a 1,500 nomination would remain 1 QPQ, a 2,500 character nom would be 2 QPQs, a 5,000 character nom would be 3 QPQs, a 7,500 character nom would be 4 QPQs... I think this will help when reviewers are reviewing new, long, GA articles. Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get support from me. First off, I have little patience for the kind of gaming of the system that this proposal represents. Secondly, the length of an article is only one indicator of the difficulty of the review. Other factors that affect review difficulty include (but are not limited to) writing quality, number of sources cited, accessibility of the sources, and whether the topic is highly specialized or controversial. A longish article that is well-organized, well written, and appropriately sourced can be a breeze to review. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "gaming the system"? Matty.007 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed rule would allow an individual to gain multiple QPQ credits for only a nominal increase in effort. As Orlady stated there are a number of factors that affect the effort required to perform a review, and in my personal experience each of the items on her list of factors has a greater impact on the effort required for a review than the prose size. DYK has an almost constant shortage of reviews and reviewers. While this proposal would be a boon for an individual savvy enough to locate easier than average nominations to review which contain 2,500 characters or more of readable prose, it would just exasperate DYK's long term shortage of reviewers. --Allen3 talk 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the explanations. Matty.007 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, this nom involved two articles very close to the 1500-character threshold, but my review required a lot more work than two typical DYK reviews for much longer articles. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP 2*

Hi, Mentoz86 told me that even External Links are enough to stop an article being eligible via 2* expansion. I would say that this needs to be clarified in the rules, and perhaps simply removed: if there are no cites, it is as useful as a google to find the source. 2* expanding it still takes as much effort with or without the EL, so am I alone in thinking that unsourced articles can have ELs? Thanks, Matty.007 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a look at this dicussion from October 2013, when it was last discussed here. Cheers, Mentoz (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion, BLP's with only external links and no references are considered unsourced. In my opinion, inline citations are what count, as they tell us where each bit of information came from. External links don't do that, so they shouldn't count against a 2× BLP expansion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my information, would BLPs with only 1 primary source/ref (from the BLP's own website for example) be eligible for the 2x expansion? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Must admit, I've always assumed that DYK would follow the definition of unsourced as used at WP:BLPPROD, i.e. "the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography" (bolding original), or at the maintenance tag {{Unsourced}}, that reminds us that a source incorrectly listed in the External links section is still a source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. The 2x rule is an extraordinarily generous exception for the specific instance of a completely unsourced BLP, and is not extended when any sources in any form supporting any information about the person were present. In cases that I've seen, external links as sources appeared to be added by inexperienced users who created articles without knowing how to use inline references, but if you look at their articles with an unbiased eye, you'll realize that no neutral party could possibly fail to see those links as sources. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When that 2x rule for unsourced BLPs was created, there were thousands of Wikipedia articles about living persons that gave absolutely no clue (no citations, no external links, no "further reading" -- nothing) as to the source of the information. The special 2x expansion rule was created to help motivate people to work on fixing those articles. As Mandarax has explained, external links are information sources. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, as I explain at the discussion cited above. I would possibly approve the article depending on the context of the external link. Some external links (read: reliable sources) would prohibit 2x expansion, whereas others wouldn't. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAs

Hi, I have been looking at the Good Articles log, where I have found several massive topics which would hugely benefit DYK. I propose that in the GA message delivered by Legobot, there is a note along the lines of "Don't forget, if this article hasn't been in DYK in the past, that it is eligible". Thanks, Matty.007 18:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since that is generated by GA that have "passed", wouldn't WT:GA have a say in that?— Maile (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Asked there. Thanks, Matty.007 19:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know that cat on my talk page? — Maile (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Sorry about that, I copied the message and removed my sig, but forgot to sign it. Thanks again, Matty.007 19:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #1 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We missed the DYK update

I think it's more than an hour overdue, and Prep 2 is not loaded with enough hooks. Nothing is in a queue. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 is now loaded with enough hooks and ready for Queue to the main page. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber Are you available to do this? — Maile (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. hang on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I've just got to read how to do it manually (been a long time!) - if some folks can load up some more prep areas, that'd be good (and I can slot into queues) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to fill up at least one more prep area. — Maile (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber Prep 3 is ready. — Maile (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber, just so you know for future reference: if the main page load is overdue, and a prep is moved to the next queue, the bot will automatically do the move to the main page at its next check, which I believe it does every 10 or 15 minutes, so a manual move isn't necessary. It does make sense to check that the bot follows through, though, because the new set might have an error, such as no DYKbotdo template at the top, or an unprotected image from Commons, and that might need fixing and clearing for the bot to complete the move. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. It was late last night here (Sydney/Oz) when this happened - had to sleep...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last minute special occasion request – Chopin's birthday

I didn't realize this at first, but tomorrow is the anniversary of Chopin's birthday. I'm sorry this is so last minute, but could we run the already-approved DYK hook for tomorrow? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a happy birthday to Chopin. Tis done. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coding problems

I've just created Template:Did you know nominations/Women's Premiership but there seems to be something wrong with the template coding. Can someone help fix this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the "reviewed" line of the template, try removing the extra square brackets in front of Template:Did you know nominations/Nelson Mandela. I would do this myself but that would result in my name being listed as the nominator. --Allen3 talk 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though there is still a problem that Women's Premiership isn't showing up as a link to the history. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It opens fine for me after your last fix. — Maile (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the Article history links. Womens Premiership, isn't showing up. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax fixed it. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK publication alerts?

I'm wondering how I was supposed to know when my nomination was to be published. Just indirectly through an internal process [1]? If so, the submission was promoted before I had been able to see the reviewer's helpful query regarding the choice of hook [2]. I did put some thought into the question posed, and eventually responded in what seemed to me to be the appropriate place [3]. But it was too late: wheels were turning... In fact, the DYK was published without my knowledge.

I feel some form of plain language communication should be possible for the benefit of those DYK nominees (whether IPs or registered users) who are not altogether familiar with the various cogs in the process. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Perhaps this is why the nomination rules state Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion (if you are not a registered user, please leave a message at the bottom of the DYK project talk page with the details of the article you would like to nominate and the hook you would like to propose) Please see Question on IP noms and reviews above. I'm surprised this even got off the ground since it was nominated by IP 86.173.146.3. Is that you? I am also surprised that same IP appears to be re-writing DYK policy/guidelines, with no one questioning it: Are you also editing under IP 86.173.146.3? It's hard to tell from what you are describing.
2) Communication about any nomination is supposed to be on the actual nomination template. No one discusses it on the "talk" page of a nomination template. Until this post here, no one saw what you posted because no one would know to look there.
3) Anytime you see that green check mark, it signifies the nomination is cleared for promotion to a Prep Area for the main page. What you wrote beneath doesn't change that, because it's only about which hook to choose. When Allen3 promoted it, he made the choice because neither you nor the reviewer were definite about which one.
4) If you nominate an article, it is up to you to watchlist for changes. If the nominating IP on this particular template is not you, well, the DYK rules still say this nomination should not have gotten off the ground the way it did.
5) Would you also happen to be both those IPs 72.74.207.196 and 72.74.206.122 that created and nominated ThePsychoExWife.com?
6) Are you also IP 81.147.166.111, who added a comment after IP 86.173.146.3 on Cranial nerve?
Regardless of any general Wikipedia policies on IP editing, you must admit it's hard to keep track of who anybody is when their DYK edits keep hopping from one IP to another. It's certainly difficult to determine which IP talk page to post to. How are we supposed to know? — Maile (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm the one who created Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Savart_wheel. The IP had painstakingly created a perfect replica of a DYK nom by editing the noms page. After I found it, I created the nom template and removed the misplaced content from the noms page. It would have been far less work for the article creator -- not to mention me -- if they had become a registered (and autoconfirmed) user who could use the simple nom-template-creation process to create the DYK nomination. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do thank (and indeed have thanked separately) Orlady for taking the time to help in this way. I also do take the point that submission is easier when editing as a registered user. On the other hand, I edit as an IP by choice and did what I felt most appropriate (after unsuccessfully requesting help from two experienced editors). However, my impression is that the IP/non-IP question is a separate one from the point I have been trying to raise in this thread, which I feel could regard DYK-newbies in general. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Maile: I appreciate your taking the time to make such a detailed reply. At the same I have to say I didn't expect to receive such a defensive response. I did try to craft what I thought might be a helpful suggestion in friendly language, believing that the issue depended on a DYK-newbie's comprehensible lack of familiarity with the details of the current submission process rather than on my contributing as an IP. (And frankly, I am somewhat surprised to be challenged for copyediting Wikipedia guidelines as an IP -- especially after not having been queried in this way when successfully tweaking as an IP the wording/content of a guideline like WP:MEDRS.) No matter... If carefully working up a page in view of DYK is going to be this arduous and ultimately unrewarding, in future I think I'll just pass on DYK. Though I most certainly will continue contributing to Wikipedia and editing in a constructive NPOV way, in line with what I believe are the rights of IP users.
I am sorry if I have misconstrued, or overreacted to, the tone of your comments -- the possibilities for such misunderstandings in online forums are seemingly endless. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding In reply to your point 5): No, I have nothing to do with ThePsychoExWife.com. Point 6) Yes, I did review Cranial nerve, as clearly indicated in my DYK submission -- fwiw, I spent my Sunday afternoon reviewing the page and trying to improve it (e.g. [4]) before adding a "comment" [5] (as you term it). 217.42.178.17 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was not intended to be defensive, but to make very clear the DYK policy and the situation when editing with an IP. I don't know about WPMEDRS, although I also am surprised you weren't challenged. I can only say that at DYK when policy and guidelines are to be changed, it first requires a discussion and consensus on this page. Even if a registered user just changes policy/gudelines without a discussion here, there is a chance it will be reverted. Communication seems to work better if a user remains constant with one identity. While Wikipedia in general encourages IP editing "anybody can edit", the realities are that there is a distinct advantage to having a registered account. Your account name/handle is the same each time, and people know what editor they are responding it. Registering is helpful. — Maile (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My edits [6] regarded use of the English language rather than content (whereas at MEDRS I did of course engage in constructive dialogue on the talk page before making any substantial changes to the wording), and I notice that no-one has so far seen fit to undo them. Fwiw, the only IPs I have used (other than my current one) since starting to expand Savart wheel are 86.173.146.3 and 81.147.166.111. I routinely specify [in square brackets] on talk pages when my IP address changes, but on the DYK template and talk, it seemed rather too obvious to bother (though in retrospect I can see that was a mistake). My decision to edit as an IP is a carefully meditated personal choice, and I believe it is a reasonable and legitimate one; I do try to leave detailed edit summaries to facilitate the work of recent change patrollers, etc. Adding: One of several that persuaded me to edit as an IP is to avoid conflict (though I think the ANI thread linked above had nothing to do with being an IP contributor, or indeed DYK submisssion itself). 217.42.178.17 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

IP or not, I still feel that terms such as "prep1" and "prep2", while perfectly functional for people staffing the DYK process, are likely to be somewhat opaque to DYK newbies. In my case, the final "prep2" stage was triggered before I got the chance to see the reviewer's query. Clearly, it was not my intention to make any form of accusation regarding this. Rather, I was trying to draw attention to what seems to me can be a potential issue for diligent DYK nominators/contributors. And, given the learning curve that all newbies to DYK have to face with its "many rules", I feel some sort of link/notice to alert nominators/contributors to imminent publication might be helpful. That's all. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regard to Maile's point 2 above (i.e. Communication about any nomination is supposed to be on the actual nomination template. No one discusses it on the "talk" page of a nomination template. Until this post here, no one saw what you posted because no one would know to look there), I think it might be useful to point out that the standard closure of DYK template page actually states:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

In practice it took me a while to spot that (and in the meantime I'd made inappropriate additions to the template, for which I apologized separately). When I did spot the header, I thought I was doing the normal thing by commenting at "this nomination's talk page".

I hope this feedback from a DYK newbie may be helpful. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint appears to be based on a fundamental misconception. Contrary to your apparent impression, DYK nominators and article creators don't have veto power or other ownership rights over the way their nominations are used. That's true for everybody, not just IP-hopping anonymous contributors -- but IP-hopping anonymous contributors, in particular, can't expect that anyone is going to go to the trouble of trying to give them courtesy notifications on any topic. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then if I'm going to be implicitly classed as a nuisance (and my "feedback" redefined as "complaint") then I'll just go elsewhere. Instead of contributing to Wikipedia here. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians are volunteers who had to learn. DYK is no different. The ANI you have linked above If carefully working up a page in view of DYK is going to be this arduous, is about a bot deletion on the article, more fully detailed on the bot's talk page. A bot is just an automated process. You have an ANI because a bot is not letting you do what you want. Sorry. Your issues are with Wikipedia as a whole, not just little old DYK. — Maile (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes I certainly experience unease when engaging on Wikipedia forum dialogues like this and , even more so, art ANI (one reason why I prefer to edit as an IP is because it seems to help me avoid similar conflicts). Please understand that the issues I raised here in gf, to provide feedback with the intention to benefit DYK, and, by extension, Wikipedia as a whole. I am unhappy because they appear to have been systematically ignored in favour of red herrings. For instance, above I explained how the template explicitly instructed me [7] to do exactly what you told me I shouldn't have done (point 2). I believe pointing out real issues in a processes is, in itself, a positive contribution. But if no-one's interested, then too bad... Let's just call it a day. 217.42.178.17 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations needing DYK reviewers

The most recent list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of 30 older nominations that need a reviewer's attention. There are still three from January that need attention—and really shouldn't be that difficult—so please take one of them on if you can. We currently have 139 total nominations, of which only 15 are approved, and we need 18 approved per day for the main page. Thanks as always for your reviews.

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) 16:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The supply situation isn't quite as severe as you suggest, BlueMoon. There are also 38 approved hooks in the special holding area for dates between March 1 and March 9 (some of which can be used any time in March). --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, it's severe enough when we're generally running with under a day's supply of regular approved hooks; let's not discourage people from reviewing the hooks on this list, okay? Right now the Women's History holding area has about enough to run one hook a day in March, assuming three per set on March 8. We have no business raiding that cache to make up a shortfall. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst we are on the subject ..... the oldest hook in the queue has just been generously agreed to as a joint hook for April 1. Would someone please give a review so we can hopefully move this to the April 1st set? Cheers Victuallers (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Template:Did you know nominations/Thigh gap hook, which I've just added to the top of the list, since it was created November 12 of last year. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also requested an opinion on Template:Did you know nominations/Fugging regarding a potential mix-up but no-one responded. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK - Glorious Revolution of 1688

An item appeared today in the "Did You Know" section of the Wikipedia main page that is historically inaccurate. The text reads: "... that the Glorious Revolution put William and Mary (pictured) on the Scottish throne and led to the dominance of Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland?"

The dominance of the Scottish Presbyterian Kirk had been established for quite some time before the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89. In fact, the Presbyterian kirk was not only the church of Scotland, it was also the ruling power for a time. (Please see topics such as the "Covenanters," the Scottish National Covenant, and the "Rule of The Saints.") These events occurred during the reigns of Charles I and II.

The appropriate sections of Wiki should be updated to reflect these historical facts. TY. Edit Centric talk 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the hook to which you refer is from the Significance section of the article and is sourced therein . I am the nominator, but no expert on the Church of Scotland. Sabrebd, since you took this article through the Good Article process, do you have any comment here?— Maile (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After the Restoration (Scotland) in 1660 episcopalianism was restored. The events after the Glorious Revolution finally settled the issue. So it is historically accurate.--SabreBD (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar-themed DYK (special request for March 2)

Just in case Orlady isn't able to complete it, would someone be able to look at and finish reviewing this DYK, as I nominated it Friday for today, but that assumed that it would be reviewed soon and not moved out of the March 2 area. I'm going to move it back, to the March 2 area, but if someone could review this Oscar-themed hook, that would be wonderful. A big thanks to whoever can do this, as I would really appreciate having it up later today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After an inordinate amount of work on my part, I believe this is ready to go. So that it can go up at an appropriate time, it should be inserted into Prep 4 in place of one of the U.S. hooks currently in that prep. Since I added sources to both articles to help substantiate the hook, I suggest that whoever moves it there should do a quick check on the hook fact support.
Kevin, in the future, please take responsibility for checking sources when you incorporate content from other Wikipedia articles in a new article. Also, please note that "special date requests" should be placed on the noms page for the date that the article was created -- the special holding area is only for approved nominations. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am sorry about that, I as was never aware that that was how everything worked for that section. In terms of the references, I was rushing a bit to get it out for you all, so I just massively assumed good faith on everything, and that was my error and I take full responsibility for my actions in that regard. Again, thank you for your edits, and I am sorry that I created the extra burden of work for you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out, since a lot of people seem to be ignoring it, that special occasion hooks are supposed to be nominated five days to six weeks before the event. There seem to be an increasing number of nominations a day or two before an event—people need to plan ahead, or accept that their nominations may not be reviewed in time. We've also had hurried reviews that have missed important issues, which reflects poorly on DYK when the articles have to be pulled from the main page or corrected there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My response to that is that in certain circumstances, WP:IAR applies. Even if there is a short time period, it is still possible to do a good and thorough review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again for my spate of short term nominations over the Winter Olympics. Thanks, Matty.007 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset Actually, heard about them an hour or two before on the news, so I decided to write two articles that very moment. IAR is a good idea, but only because five to six weeks is very far out, and coverage will only increase exponentially until that time, so some things might get missed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's five days at the earliest, and six weeks at the latest. Not so very far out at all in the usual way of things. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. In Los Angeles time where the Oscars are, I think that's 4 p.m. on 2 March. You just made Ktr101 happy. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone! I actually was conflicted about that one, only because that would be one day for most of the world, would be the previous day in Los Angeles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing" DYK nomination - Atopodentatus?

Hi, I expanded Atopodentatus 5x and added it as a DYK nomination at 1924 hrs on 02 Mar 14 (Indian Standard Time). However it does not reflect on Template talk:Did you know which shows the last edit at 1832 hours. I had used the typein box for automated creation of the nomination. Do I need to do something more? AshLin (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Did you know isn't automatically updated, nominations need to be manually added to the page under the correct date. GRAPPLE X 14:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me. AshLin (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Women's Day

Seems like a good moment to raise how we choose the hooks to be displayed

  1. We just allow it to happen as it usually does with volunteers packing the prep areas as they see fit.
  2. We allow three or four experienced editors to create their own prep sets free from their own or their mates nominations.
  3. Something else

We also need to decide how many sets of hooks should be used PFHLai seemed to have some views on this as did OhConfucious. Obviously it would be helpful if we could agree this within the next few days to avoid interventions on March 7. Can I thank all those who have contributed and those who continue to nominate for Women's History Month. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to also have a bunch of edit-a-thons going on in the days before that date, so we also might want to look into incorporating those into the queue if any show up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main page DYK error

For whatever reason, trying to pull up the Main page errors is coming up "File not found" . However, there is a typo on the main page for the Armatix iP1. It should not say "cannot access", but should say "cannot be accessed". — Maile (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the Main page errors is working again, so I posted this over there. — Maile (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lent

Lent starts tomorrow, the look at graves might be a good idea, Waldfriedhof Zehlendorf would need a review first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra dot

Queue 5: the The Saguache Crescent hook has an extra dot behind the "?", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current DYK hook on Main Page is confusing

Hello, it may be just me, but the current hook about the Lombardi Grand Prix is very confusing. Here's the current text:

...that if not for a tank accident in Cyprus, the Lombardi Grand Prix (pictured) would have probably lasted longer?

For anyone who doesn't know it's a car (I would guess the majority of readers have never even heard of this particular model), it firstly makes sense to assume the hook is about a Grand Prix race, as that is the more commonly used appearance of this term. Therefore it also seems to sound as if a race was cut short because of a tank... While there is a photo, that could just be a photo of a car that took part in the race, at a casual glance of the thumbnail.

I know it's now on the main page, and probably too late to suggest an alternative, but I think it should be changed to clarify that due to the death of the major buyer the car ceased to be manufactured. Howie ☎ 22:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=598169072"