Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.107.131.23 (talk) at 06:49, 9 December 2012 (→‎Main page error reports are ignored: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Proposals for handling GibraltarpediA nominations were discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options

Special occasion holding area

When a new special occasion section is created, is it possible to have a page dedicated to discuss the DYK special occasion? I would like to write an article for the Christmas 2012 Special occasion holding area, but can't think of any Christams topics to write about. I saw Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2009, so I added "Discuss this topic and get ideas for articles at Wikipedia:Did you know/Christmas 2012" to the Christmas area in case someone has an idea for other Christmas articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could write about Christmas in France or other country specific tradition articles. See Category:Christmas traditions by country for the limited coverage we have in this dimension. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same problem with special occasions - perhaps rather than creating a specific talk page per special occasion, a separate talk page could be created? I'm currently considering creating an article on the Christmas tree in the Grand Place in Brussels, Belgium as there's been a bit of hullabaloo about it this year as they've gone for some fancy box shaped art installation, and I'm going there next weekend so I'd be able to get the photo for the nomination. But outside creating new articles, I tend to do searches on Christmas related words and then browse through the list - when I see the combination of an interesting topic combined with a small sized article, I take a look. I also favour browsing the Christmas categories to look up articles I've not heard of, on the presumption that they'll also be small articles. Miyagawa (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More older nominations awaiting your review

The rate of hook reviews remains behind what we need to keep all the queues and prep areas full. (At posting time there are 40 open slots, 32 approved hooks to fill them, and another six slots opening up in 75 minutes.) Here are some of the older submissions that need attention.

Also, here are eight of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews, and only some of these already have a completed first review. You can also look in the holding area for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hook, explanation

I just have a quick question. If the hook that was approved for the article Sentimientos (Ivy Queen song) was:

  • ...that the lyrics of the song "Sentimientos" by Ivy Queen describe how doing things that are nice or romantic "are more important than material things"?

Why the hook showed at the main page was:

  • ...that the song "Sentimientos" by Ivy Queen combines the Latin styles of reggaeton and bachata?

Someone could explain what happened here? I lived this situation before, when one of my hooks was suddently changed and with no advice. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the change, you may want to ask the editor who changed it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your inquiry, Hahc. In response, I would first point you to our rules page, which clearly states that A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit.
With regard to the hook itself, I replaced it because in my view it failed the requirement that a hook has to be interesting. Although what constitutes "interesting" is not currently clearly defined in our rules, there is a broad consensus among experienced DYK reviewers that hooks referring to common, everyday phenomena are by definition uninteresting. In this case, your hook was based on a sentiment expressed in a song. This is usually a really bad idea for a hook, because most popular songs express one of a small number of very common themes, for example, about love gone wrong, or that romantic love is the most wonderful experience one can have, and so on. I mention these two themes because it so happens that I had to alter a couple of other hooks based on them in the last few days. The hook in question here was another variation on one of those themes, ie that romance is more important than "material things".
Apart from that, I am concerned about the number of complaints we have been getting recently regarding such mundane hook material, and am trying to ensure that hooks which reach the main page are of an appropriate standard. I could of course have removed your hook from the queue and returned it to T:TDYK for further discussion, but doing so is quite disruptive to our processes and I prefer not to do that if I think it unnecessary. In this case, with all due respect I think it would have been a waste of time returning the hook for discussion, as I think the result would have been a foregone conclusion. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, the hook is not mine. I just saw it and wanted to know what happened there. Thanks for the explanation Gatoclass. I appreciate that you took your time to address my concerns. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the statement A hook is subject without notice to copy-editing as it moves to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit., this is indeed clearly stated on the rules page, however what you did was not copy-editing instead you changed the hook completely. Four editors came to a consensus that my hook met all of the DYK standards (this includes being interesting). If you thought the hook was uninteresting, a different action should of be chosen. If you have doubts of how interesting something is than what should have been done was you should of re-opened the discussion. Yes, it would of been a waste of time to re-open the discussion because four editors had already agreed that the hook met all DYK standards (again this includes being interesting). I would just like to express my feelings about why the hook was changed and nor am I discouraged from it being changed. Thank you. DivaKnockouts (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC it used to say a hook is subject to "changes" or something similar, but at some stage its meaning has migrated, a chronic problem with policy pages. There was not a "consensus of four editors" approving your hook, it finally obtained the approval of only one reviewer, however, DYK reviewers are chronically overworked and hook quality in particular is an aspect that is often overlooked. I have had a lot of experience as a DYK reviewer, and am confident your hook would not have withstood closer scrutiny, otherwise I would indeed have returned it for discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights movement?

This hook on the "human rights movement" is slated to hit the front page in four hours:

... that while the roots of the international human rights movement are about a century old, it grew in global significance around the 1970s?

The article was not very well developed, barely containing more information on "human rights movements" than the article on human rights does, and relying mostly on one source! I added a little more history about the origins of the "human rights" movement, which I think are improvements. But I'm still reluctant to send an article this lopsided to the front page.

If we do run this article, I think we should change the hook. I don't see "about a century old" sourced or explained (arguably it's much older or a little younger)—and the "global significance" claim is not very useful. (Pan-Africanists were conducting a global human rights movement in the 1940s; is Jimmy Carter, an American President, really the benchmark for a global movement?) I think it would be completely accurate to say that the international human rights movement grew in global significance in every decade beginning with the 1930s.

Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have pulled the article for further discussion as I am inclined to agree that the content mostly just recapitulates content from the human rights article. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A replacement hook will be needed. May I suggest "Ejegod Windmill" from Prep 2? (We don't want another bio or another UK hook in that spot, and the US is asleep at that point.) We need an admin to do the moving. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to make it. Thanks for the quick work. I've filled in the empty spot that made in Prep 2, and we're all set. In fact, all four prep areas are completely full now. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now what? I watch that the article is building. I think I should not be the reviewer in the next round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the issue here other than IDONTLIKE? The hook was referenced, the article is new and beyond stub, referenced, and even if it was mostly one-source, one source is not a problem for start-class articles such as DYKs. I have no problem with proposing alternate hooks, but pulling the article from the queue to do IDONTLIKE a hook seems excessive to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One source is an issue for politically contested articles. Secretlondon (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if anyone can prove they are non-neutral and controversial, which I don't believe applies here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKSG#D12: "Multiple sources are generally required, to ensure the article meets the general notability guideline." Having only a single source is an issue, period, according to the DYK rules. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility criteria

I was told that the prose of an article must be at least 15000 characters, but is not it should be 1500 instead. I ask, therefore, reviewing this DYN request, I think the hook is a curiosity really tasty. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 1500 criteria is for new articles (i.e. articles that were created within the last 5 days). Older articles need to be expanded five times. At any rate, the length is only problem; I'm afraid the article's language is barely English, and hardly encyclopedic... I suggest you ask someone to copy edit it for you. Yazan (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now English. It has expanded from 13k to 23k in the past 15 days [which IMO seems pretty much like streching the limit of this article's extents], and makes up for a fairly interesting hook.
Regarding how encyclopediac the article needs to be, I shall need some feedback on how to do it
My personal suggestion (needs imporvement) - Did you know that the 1.63 m tall Antonietta Di Martino, by jumping 2.04m holds the world record for jumping the highest above her own height TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sky City

This looks like an article which certainly is new and will make for a greak DYK hook-

For example, Did you know that the proposed Sky City skyscraper in Changsha, China will be the world's tallest building and be built in just 90 days?

The only problem with the article here is that though it is new, it hasnt seen huge expansion in a very small time frame of the past 7 days. I am willing to expand it, but I doubt there will be 5-fold expansion or will follow the 7-day window.

But considering how awesome the hook could be, can we try to be WP:BOLD and allow an exception for this article? It certianly will be great both for DYK (In terms of avery interesting hook) and for the article(which, considering the claim, looks very much likely to be getting more interesting as time passes)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started on June 19, 2012 and needs a fair amount of work. The 90 day thing seems to be contested according to the article. Secretlondon (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)In short: I'm afraid not. There is leeway in the rules when it comes to date of creation but the article is hardly new (created 19 June), and hasn't been even minimally expanded in the past month. For a project this size (if the claims are true), I'm sure the article could be expanded well beyond 5x if a determined editor is there. (See for example the Burj Khalifa article). Yazan (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, it very much is unlikely that the claims will be followed up, but this project just might do it quite a lot faster than usual.
More importantly, I think coverage for this topic shall increase quite a bit, and DYK would be good to give it a boost.
What will the be the approximate size of the article wehn finished, if it to be allowed under the 'new' criteria? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If expansion is to start from the current version (2263 characters) it would need to be expanded to around 11,000 characters. (for comparison, the Burj Khalifa article is well over 25,000 characters). Yazan (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Burj is already the world's tallest building, and hence the huge coverage. Anyways, i shall try to do whatever I can.
Can you just point out what needs to be done to the article? Also, if anyone can help me with referencing and citations [not my strong field; I always do badly at it], I shall highly appreciate the help. Thanks and cheers! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be desirable to perform the update in your userspace so you can have a little extra time if needed. Alternatively, you can check who the contributors are of the other supertall buildings like the Burj Khalifa and see if they'll help you expand the article so it can be completed faster. Ryan Vesey 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city - Help to make the article better is very much needed and appreciated. Thanks TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It now meets the character limit. Asking for review on the page now - User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page you listed is only 4561 characters. thats little more than 2x expansion. Yazan (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it is showing 10700 bytes to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's not a new article, it needs to be expanded to 5 times its size. Ryan Vesey 05:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is measured is prose characters, not bytes. It's a 5x expansion of the article's prose, excluding lists, blockquotes, and the various article boilerplate like section headers. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another bloated stub.

Currently on the main page, Marc Salles, is yet another bloated stub by the editor User:Thine Antique Pen, which tell us how the Spain national field hockey team performed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. Given the recent problems with bloat in DYK-articles written by this user, I think it's more important to check this user's nominations twice, then checking those perferct Gilbraltar-articles twice. There were recently a proposal to ban LauraHale from DYK for some of the same reasons, but Thine Antique Pen's bloated stubs are much more worse than Laura's articles. What should be done about this user, and it's DYK's? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a recurrent theme. I trimmed some of the padding and reduced it to 1467 characters. Let's hope the nominator will learn from this and improve future submissions. Sasata (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing concisely certainly isn't something TAP is good at yet, but Mandarax you seem to have a problem with assuming bad faith on at least some of these items. As regards abbr=off, Thine Antique Pen used it here as well, and that article is 43751 characters of prose, so hardly in need of padding. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny: I was reading this upside down, so I got to the article before I saw who the author was--for a moment it looked like an old-fashioned Laura Hale article. Anyway, it's less bloated now. Again, I'm interested in who does quality control. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again pulled a hook from the queue for very poor sourcing.

I have yet again pulled a hook from the queue for unacceptable sourcing. In this case, the article Grand Casemates Gates was nominated with the hook "that at the Ceremony of the Keys, drums and fifes are played at the Grand Casemates Gates (pictured) in Gibraltar to warn aliens to leave before the gates are locked?" This sentence of the article is sourced to here, but that source has in red letters, beneath the pictures but above the text: "THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION IS COURTESY OF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremony_of_the_Keys" So this hook is sourced to Wikipedia, not to a reliable source... I have just been accused at Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bickerton of using DYK as my "personal playground", but perhaps I should indeed start doing that to prevent such things happening again, and again, and again... Fram (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an inexcusable miss, given that Bluemoonset had already raised a query over the source in question on the nom page - it appears his concerns were simply ignored.
I have been toying for a while with the idea of establishing some sort of sanction for reviewers who pass articles which fail basic DYK compliance tests like sourcing of the hook, article length etc. QPQ reviewers could have a current or future DYK submission of their own automatically disqualified for failing to do the appropriate checks on a QPQ review. I have come across a disturbing number of sloppy reviews in recent days, it's clear that at least some QPQ reviewers are simply not taking their responsibilities seriously enough. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gato, have you considered asking the hook promoter, BlueMoonset, if BlueMoonset's concerns had been addressed before the promotion was performed? --Allen3 talk 12:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the fact that Bluemoonset did the promotion, and have struck some of my remarks accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. As a fairly experienced author, I would not have used a source marked in red with "courtesy of Wikipedia". Two reviewers confirmed that the source supported the hook. They would have spotted the red warning if it were there. Bluemoonset saw that this source referred to a 1951 ceremony and was copyright 2002 by a person, so might be out of date and perhaps unreliable. She pointed this out, but did not mention the "courtesy of Wikipedia" notice. I rechecked, sort-of-agreed, and added about ten better sources on the modern ceremony. I left this source mainly because of the pictures. On the recheck I did not see the "courtesy of Wikipedia" notice. I am sure that Bluemoonset and the two other reviewers would have seen it if it were there. My guess that that the website owner added the notice very recently. Unfortunately there is no way of verifying that. I will tweak the article to drop this source and point to another one, but not immediately. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does appear that something very odd has occurred here, since it otherwise suggests that two experienced reviewers inexplicably missed a bright red link that said "courtesy of wikipedia", which seems unlikely. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Calm down. Its only wikipedia. Noone in the real world cares.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False dilemma, obviously. Maybe it's just that too many people think that nominating and promoting articles to DYK is more important than having good enough quality content on the main page. Even assuming that that disclaimer just popped up between the nomination/promotion and my removal, how was that ever a reliable source for that information? It's a hobbyist history site, not a professional reliable source. And the number of articles that were approved for main page placement, and then had to be taken out of the queue (or even from the main page) is alarmingly high; nothing to do with conspiracies, just sloppy work, wrong priorities, or whatever other reason. If it isn't possible to check so many articles thoroughly, then reduce the number of articles that make it to DYK main page. Fram (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like I'm definitely deserving of the trout. Although I wouldn't call it silly so much as apparently oblivious when doing my original check. I questioned the reliability of the source in question even though I didn't take in the (bright red) Wikipedia link—it would have been the first thing I mentioned if so, since at the time it would have disallowed the entire ceremony section. What had struck me about that source was that it had refuted a major claim in the original hook and ALT1, about two ceremonies a year since 1933, in April and October, just by showing pictures of a January ceremony in 1951.
I have to take another hit for relying on memory, since having been to that site once to check a hook that included fife and drum and not mentioned an issue with that fact in my note, I apparently thought I was safe. My apologies to all for the error. By my count, four key people managed to miss this one: the two reviewers, me, and the person who promoted it from prep to queue. (PS: note to Aymatth2: I'm definitely "he", not "she".) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe the red notice was present at the top of the text and got missed by all the reviewers. A simple explanation is that the site owner was checking their usage statistics, saw a flurry of viewers coming in from Wikipedia, and decided they really should acknowledge that was where they got the text. Bluemoonset was very alert in spotting that although the text in the source said "is currently performed twice a year (in April and October)" the photos showed a ceremony in January 1951. Checking further, he questioned whether the source was accurate, up to date and reliable. I scrabbled around and found a bunch of other sources confirming that the ceremony is indeed still being held, but that "April and October" is no longer accurate, so tweaked the hook. There is no doubt at all that the ceremony is held twice a year with pipes and drums, antique uniforms, stamping feet, salutes and shouted orders and all the other tourist stuff. The article is accurate and so is the hook. Just a poor-quality source was retained - my fault. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the ceremony of locking the gates was a nightly occurrence in 1908 and did mean no one (including citizens) was allowed to leave/enter the city. I think the courtesy tag was added later. Froggerlaura ribbit 16:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a reviewer who was whacked by a wet trout, I can state in my defence that the three references that I checked were the 3rd, 4th and 5th under "Sources" and I must admit to not have looked at the actual citations. My bad! However I was motivated to review some Gibraltar articles because they are tucked away where nobody looks at them and utterly neglected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have "unreviewed" it again. One would expect that the second time around, the reviewer is extra careful, but apparently not. I have given a lengthy explanation at Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Casemates Gates, basically the section needs a rewrite, and of the 5 sources given for the hook, 4 definitely don't support it (or even contradict it), and one is not accessible to me. Fram (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My review stands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for helping to self-identify part of the problem. Now to find a way to remove this part of the problem to improve the level of the reviews and to decrease the number of errors... Fram (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further discussion, the hook that was approved (repeatedly!) by Hawkeye7 has now been struck by the article creator as he or she is unable to reliably and unambiguously source it (which is good), and a different hook proposed. It has already been approved again by Hawkeye7, but that's hardly a guarantee of anything, as can be seen from this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA on DYK

Finally, what happened with that proposal? Would recently promoted GAs be eligible for DYK? — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an official RFC hasn't been put out there yet. What was out there before was not well done and inconclusive. Prioryman was working on a formalized RFC, the last I heard. You might want to inquire at his talk page. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and apologies for the delay (and my recent lull in activity) - I've been recovering from a hand injury that has made typing and mousing rather awkward. I'm getting back into the swing of things now, though, so I'll get on with taking this forward. Prioryman (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If you need any help, I'd be glad to assist, Prioryman. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the DYN's in template namespace?

Why are the DYN nominations in template namespace? Seems odd. Is it due to historical circumstances? Why not have them as subpages of Wikipedia:Did you know? Seems more logical and consistent to me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It's a true Wikipedia-by-committee work.
— Maile (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should move the whole shebang over to Wikipedia namespace. There is no technical reason not to do it, and all it will need is some editor and bot grunt to do it. WP is hard enough for newbies (and oldbies like me) without throwing these stupid inconsistencies in the way. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. Seems not very template-y.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While my grasp of wiki-nomenclature is pretty basic, I must agree that it's often seemed incongruous to me to have such a large slice of my editing pie in the "Template" and "Template talk" categories. Gatoclass (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a very different reason for wanting a change of namespace. I think IPs should be able to submit nominations, so I would support a move to either Template talk or Wikipedia talk. My preference would be for Template talk, since they're subpages of the main nomination page, which is in that namespace. If I recall correctly, when the subpage system was first introduced, subpages were in Template talk. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 12:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax, humor me for a moment and let me know if I understand what you are saying. As I understand it, everybody else thinks that the pages currently under "Template" should be moved to subpages of "Wikipedia:Did You Know". But you feel it should be moved the other direction - that the entire work should be subpages of nominations page "Template Talk:Did You Know". Did I understand you correctly? — Maile (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarax, IP editors can edit Wikipedia namespace pages as well as their associated talk pages. Template talk is even further removed from where the DYN noms should be. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I wanted IPs to be able to edit; they can do that now. I said I wanted them to be able to submit nominations, i.e., create the subpages, which they cannot do now. Now they have to either ask here for someone to do it for them, or they create the subpage in a talkspace and transclude it on the nominations page hoping it works, which it doesn't. I've moved a lot of such subpages created by IPs from Template talk to Template.

IPs already have to go through something such as Articles for creation to get their articles in mainspace; it would be nice if they didn't have another obstacle when they want to nominate an article which they, or someone else, wrote.

You said that you wanted it to be "logical and consistent"; having the subpages of the main nomination page being in the same namespace as that page sounds pretty logical and consistent to me. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess IPs cannot make nominations at present. I don't think letting IPs make nominations is as important as having it logical and consistent. Do you think there is a high demand for IP DYN noms on WP? Let me know ASAP. (LOL ) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps adding another element to the statement Mandarax has made about IP noms is discussion section below. Ryan Vesey has assisted the IP and created a nom template for Jeremy Boreing. As Ryan notes on the template, is this considered a self-nom? Bluemoonset in the section below advises QPQ on this one. Would an issue such as this resolve itself if we went with Mandarax's suggestions? — Maile (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Htou-tjyen

The hook "Did you know that the ancient Htou-tjyen playing cards (pictured) of Korea were only half an inch (1.27 cm) wide?" currently in Prep area 4 is misleading and should be changed. There is nothing in the Htou-tjyen article to indicate that these playing cards are particularly ancient. They are discussed in an 1896 work, but the article provides no evidence for how long they have been in use in Korea or that they even existed prior to the 19th century. 19th century is not ancient in my book. BabelStone (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, is it appropriate for it to go on the main page with the translate tag? Ryan Vesey 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources discussed in the article says 6th century. The translate tag is gone. Secretlondon (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2012 (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) 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some prep areas - now three are empty. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK submission

Could somebody add Jeremy Boreing as a DYK nomination? This is the hook I'd like to use (unless there's a better one to suggest):

72.74.196.20 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it yourself if you like? Self nominations are acceptable. Click --> Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_post_a_new_nomination. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, an IP can't create the nomination page. Ryan Vesey 04:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Jeremy Boreing. Ryan Vesey 05:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.. All the more reason to WP:REGISTER. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a number of "nominations" by IPs starting with 72.74; since this user's IP changes regularly, I think we need to consider that quid pro quo reviews ought to be required, since the user has almost certainly used up five freebies at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that it should probably count as a self nom. I haven't seen any of the other articles before, and although I'll take your word for it, do you want to make the point that a QPQ from the IP should be required? Ryan Vesey 18:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paleontology multi

For a few days, I've been slowly working my way through reviewing the 40-plus multi found at Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States. This is a group of paleontology articles that User:Abyssal has been working on for months in his user space, and which he/she moved into main space last week. The articles appear to be well-sourced, though much of the source material is off-line. The review process is daunting. I've completed a review of the last 15 or so subparts and am keeping a running list within the template identifying the subparts that have been reviewed. I would welcome others jumping in and checking out some of the articles. If you choose to do so, simply make a note as to which article(s) you have reviewed. That way, we'll know which parts are done and which still need work. Another set of eyes on such a massive set of articles is probably a good idea in any event. Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its the slightest bit hooky to be honest. Secretlondon (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales

Are we really going to put such an awful article as Template:Did you know nominations/Women's sport in New South Wales on the front page? Has anyone read the "history" section and thought, yes, that's a comprehensive overview of the history of women's sport in New South Wales, instead of a bizarre collection of unrelated faits-divers? Has anyone bothered to read the University section, for that matter? How is this in any way coherent and logical? It doesn't even get the basic chronology right, jumping from one tidbit to another without any link between them. There is hardly a sentence in there without minor or major errors. And of course it is entirely focused on one of the ten universities of New South Wales only. Fram (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly in no shape to appear on the main page. I think an admin needs to remove it from the queue pending further discussion. Yazan (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: an admin needs to act in the next six hours or the hook will automatically move to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too late. That's the last time I ask for input (thanks to those who gave it), next time I(ll just act on my opinion first and come for discussion afterwards. How many more of these problematic or piss-poor articles will we allow to be highlighted on our main page, to be seen by thousands of people, as if we are proud of them and want to showcase them? I could understand it a little bit better if it was done to encourage a new editor, but even that excuse isn't applicable here. I haev just edited the article and hook nominated in Template:Did you know nominations/Samantha Norwood: the original hook was sourced to a student run college newspaper, not a reliable source. The alt hook was sourced to three sources, so I put it on instead. However, looking further, one of the three sources didn't contain the statement, and the other two were identical, a press release from the team repeated by a sports website. I'll let it stand for now, but consisering that press releases don't even count towards notability, I don't see why they should be acceptable as sources for DYK hooks. Fram (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that notability vs. reliable sourcing are two completely different issues. If the person is considered notable, then an article is appropriate. Where the hook fact comes from needs to be a reliable source, even if it isn't one that helps establish that notability. Someone's birth date may figure into a hook, but not come from a secondary source establishing notability; I don't see why that would be problem. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translated articles

This is a general question, triggered by a specific situation: Template:Did you know nominations/Christoph Nichelmann is basically a translated article, from de:Christoph Nichelmann. This is indicated in the article history, no problem there (although some more attribution was welcome, but that's not relevant to this discussion). Does this count as a new article? The DYK reviewing guide states "If a new article incorporates text copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a pre-existing article." Does this apply here or not? Fram (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the perennial questions, but I don't know exactly where it was handled last. Please look at the archives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I thought it was a wider discussion about this recently, but I only found this discussion in the archive. Consensus is that if translated articles are to be considered as new articles, but they have to be well-written and have in-line citations to be accepted at DYK. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of discussions, many people seem to have a problem with this (and many others don't). I fail to see how translating an existing article can be equated with creating one from scratch. Take e.g. the article we have here, Christoph Nichelmann; even the sources are identical (except for one, operone.de), the whole structure of the article is identical: there has been no truly creative effort, no searching for sources, no actual writing, only a (good) cleanup of an apparently machine translated article (based on the first version of the page[1]). Why would such an article be considered to be comparable to truly "new" ones? Fram (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't translate articles for Wikipedia, but I have a long experience in translation work. I do think that a well-translated and sourced article should count as a new one. It is, after all, a net addition to the coverage of the English Wikipedia and certainly provides new content in that context. Yazan (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I often import articles from public domain sources (in English). They are also a "net addition" and "new content", but I doubt they would be accepted. Fram (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would have accepted them, try it next time ;) - one discussion found, August, I remember a longer one but it may have been longer ago than I thought, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copying and pasting PD content is not analogous to "translating" an article. A better analogy would probably be "machine translation" of an article. There is indeed a substantial effort that goes into a proper translation (often requiring going back to the sources to capture the context). Yazan (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The translation itself may be the easiest step. Foreign-language articles often have little or no sourcing. The translation gives a starting point, but then there is the job of finding sources, ensuring that the article accurately reflects them and cutting out stuff that cannot be verified. Sometimes it would have been easier to start from scratch. But is DYK a reward system for editors, where they have to work hard to qualify? I see it more as a random selection of acceptable quality new articles for readers. Some may have been thrown off quickly and others took a lot more effort. I don't think that is relevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria Rule 1f: "f) Articles that are translations from other wikis count as new articles." Harrias talk 17:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Stupid rule, but so be it, there are other problems with DYK that are a lot more alarming than this one. Fram (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is a stupid rule, as it gives an incentive to translate articles. Machine translations can be very misleading. Moonraker (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IADYKR: Ignore All DYK Rules

I think we should allow articles that were transmogrified from dung to pearls. Case in point, St Marys Church, Clophill. It was a piece of crap, and after cleanup and intervention, and some hip expansion and sourcing by Uncle G, it is now a pretty groovy piece of work. Note that except for a few sentences here and there everything has been rewritten, with bad old links thrown out and new sources added. TY, Drmies (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask whether we can also apply the IAR concept to Notre Dame Cathedral (Phnom Penh). It was an incoherent translation off the French version (678 characters) and now everything has been revamped with reliable sources and not a single bit kept from the old version. However, it's now 3,079 characters long (less than 10% short of the 3,390 needed). I've searched through all the sources on Google Books and News archives and I couldn't find anything else to add. Could we please make an exception here? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's box... Yazan (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking this further; it's become quite clear why we have A4.
  • A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. Twofold expansion for newly sourced BLPs similarly means from the version prior to the expansion and addition of sources.
I've (regretfully) had to rejected the nomination, and I've explained my rationale there. If another DYK editor decides to IAR, I won't have any objections though. It is indeed a quality article, and it would make a great main page material; I simply think the adverse effect on DYK's process would be far greater than the good. Yazan (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your judgment; to each their own. I do have to point out that both articles are under similar circumstances—completely revamped, new reliable sources added and no old text from the previous version. The only difference is the scope of the expansion—St Marys Church, Clophill was expanded 1.42×, while the article I cleaned-up was expanded 4.54×. I find it strange that we accept the 1.54× article and not the 4.54× one. In my opinion, there are three paths from here. We should either accept both articles, neither or the article with the larger expansion. Choosing to accept the smaller expansion article and rejecting the larger expansion would set a really bad precedent demonstrating wrong approach. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bloom6132, you seem to have misunderstood my reply as specifically to you (perhaps because of the indent). My reply was to the discussion in general, and my comments were actually posted at the nomination page for St Marys Church, Clophill where I rejected the article for those reasons. Yazan (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D'Oh! Sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for clearing things up for me. It hadn't crossed my mind to check the nomination page of the other article. Don't worry, I didn't take your comments personally; I assumed it was for anyone reading this discussion thread who would be supporting/opposing the article. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Bloom's cathedral now has enough material to be eligible. Sky City is obviously a different case: one can truly speak of expansion there, since the old text is retained. In our case, St Marys Church is rewritten from scratch, hence the appeal to forgo A4. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Does Sky City - current version here: User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city also fall under similar circumstances? The article looks well written as of now, only it does not meet the 5x criteria. A review by editors shall make it a perfect DYK hook. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To requested a history merge, go to WP:REPAIR. --George Ho (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The old article has roughly 2300 characters, the new one roughly 5100. Moreover, the older version is decently written and well-verified, and for the most part (if not practically completely) retained in the new version. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone say if the article looks good and long enough to try to be put up for DYK nomination, with the size as an exception considering the 'hookiness' of the hook? Or is there some speicific portion of the article that needs to be worked upon? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article as you've revised it simply isn't long enough, by a wide margin, to count as a 5x expansion, which is required here. "Hookiness" is not a valid exception. What is required is a large amount of additional prose. Sometimes an article starts out with too much material to make it feasible to expand it for DYK; this seems to be one of those cases. As noted by Drmies, the article as it stands now is adequately written and well-verified: yours is a definite improvement, but not a sufficient expansion. There are so many articles that fall short on their expansion that have not been approved for DYK that I don't see why an exception should be made in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Under these scenarios what applies to them becoming new enough to be eligible for a DYK.

  • An article that was deleted and moved to a userspace and will be recreated again after improvement. Does the article become eligible the moment it moves out of the userspace or does it count as an old article that needs to be expand five-fold? Ex: User:KAVEBEAR/Moses Kekūāiwa
  • An article is proposed to be deleted by a user and that same user recreates it anew with a fresh history afterwards. Does the article become eligible when it was create the second time or is this not allowed. Ex: I wish to do this for Pauli Kaōleiokū and Kanekapolei which were poorly created but don't know if I can expand it five-fold.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It counts as a new article. The second one is bending the rules, but if the article is so bad as to be deleted in an AfD or a PROD, then it makes sense to consider the expansion as a new article. Be ware though, nominating valid articles (even if not of great quality) for deletion just to be able to score a DYK when you recreate it will probably be frowned upon, if not considered outright disruptive. Yazan (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that in both cases it depends on how much time has passed. If it's a matter of days or weeks, then I wouldn't think it would qualify. If it is a matter of many months, then there's a good possibility that it would, depending on the judgment of the reviewer. However, if the old article had been published under DYK, then it wouldn't be eligible. I'm with Yazan: I don't like the notion of articles, even stubs, being deleted because a 5x expansion doesn't look feasible. DYK is not the end-all and the be-all, and to have an article deleted to qualify rather than just updating it in place seems wrong. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just because of the obscurity of the subject makes it hard to do a 5x expansion all the time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Older articles needing reviews

The rate of hook reviews has picked up a bit, but we're still barely at what we need to keep all the queues and prep areas full. (At posting time there are 36 open slots, and 39 approved hooks to fill them.) Here are some of the older submissions that need attention, including five still needing attention from October.

Also, here are eight of the oldest Gilbraltar-related hooks that need reviews; all are in the special holding area, where it's hard to find them. Gibraltar hooks need two careful reviews, and only some of these already have a completed first review. You can also look in the holding area for many other more recent hooks needing review. Thank you.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them, even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main page error reports are ignored

I posted about the Intraplage Deformation article 3 hours ago and it is still on the main page. The main page says this, "that tectonic plates in the Earth's crust are not completely rigid but can be deformed by the melting of an ice cap?"

The article does not say this. Someone posted on the error reports showing a past version that said that, but the author of the article created information to put in the article that is not in the sources, so I don't think that it should just use an old version.

This needs removed from the main page. Now, not 3 more hours from now.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=527143822"