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 EEng (talk | contribs) at 08:01, 19 January 2015 (→‎Playing fast and loose?: more). 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.

Restrictive/non-restrictive

In "...that the barnacle, Pyrgoma anglicum, is often found living parasitically inside the sunset cup coral (pictured)?"

The commas ought to be removed in order to make the clause restrictive. Currently the punctuation supports the unfortunate meaning "the one barnacle that exists, namely..." Flipping Mackerel (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if you've seen one barnacle you've seen 'em all. Leave it to a mackerel to notice an error involving the (or a) barnacle. EEng (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, but in future please post this in WP:ERRORS if the hook is already on the main page, as per the notice at the top of this page. Harrias talk 10:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was this a hypothetical question? The nomination mentioned seems to be this one but the commas mentioned as needing to be removed were not in the nomination or its history. Also, the name of the barnacle in question is Megatrema anglicum and Pyrgoma anglicum is a synonym and was not used in the nominated hook. All very mysterious. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try this Fuebaey (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see where it came from now. it was added here as ALT1 by Girona7 when reviewing the nomination and I didn't notice that the barnacle's scientific name was wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no... Did I mess up the name? I apologize if so! :( Girona7 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I was unobservant too! :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the hook fact permitted to be cited in the lead?

I'd appreciate more comments on this three month old nomination - Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers. I wasn't going to drag this on since the nominator popped up again, but there seems to be a larger argument brewing. This is the original hook, with links to the articles in question:

... that the Italian cruisers Umbria, Lombardia, Etruria, Liguria, Elba and Puglia all belonged to the Template:Sclass2-?

I added one reference to pre-existing sentences in lead of each of the seven articles to verify the hook fact. The reviewer called for the reference to be moved to the body of the article instead. Because I couldn't find another standardised statement across the articles and as this isn't a DYK requirement, I called for a second opinion. BlueMoonset and LlywelynII gave differing viewpoints. To slightly complicate matters, the nominator attempted to add a hook statement to the body that the original creator has objected to the wording of. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • An opinion was given that, if an edit violates good article criteria, it no longer meets good article standard. Although I don't know much about GA criteria, I respect the fact that GAs should meet them. However, I also think that if anyone disagrees with the GA standard for these articles that they open a GA reassessment case instead of rehashing it out in a different forum. If the problem overlaps DYK criteria then that would be reason to not accept this nomination, but Manual of Style/Lead is not one of them. The latter does not prohibit citations in the lead.
Off topic alternative solutions
Ignoring the GA status of these articles, the earliest of these articles was created on the 3rd October (5th, 5th, 5th, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 15th respectively). Given the 13th October nomination date, could there be a case to go "it's only 1-3 days late" so treat them as new articles and not worry about where the verifying hook citation is placed?
There is some disagreement to how many ships actually constitute this class. As a compromise, if the lead citation is opposed, would citing the class in the infobox be an acceptable solution for both the article and DYK? This removes the question of the number of ships in the class and cites the hook without adding any extraneous text.
Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a mess of different topics, most of which should be addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers. [ edit: additional discussion on that point here ]
Concerning the topical points:
A) Should we violate GA criteria in order to meed DYK criteria?
No. We shouldn't do that.
B) Did this particular edit ever actually violate GA criteria?
This should be addressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers (but, no, it didn't.)
C) Should a potential violation of GA criteria be a reason to derail a DYK that otherwise meets all of our criteria?
No. We shouldn't introduce errors, mistakes, or problems as a matter of policy but it's also entirely beside the point. If the articles passed the GA process and they meet all of our criteria, they're perfectly good to go. There is no reason or good that comes out of our second-guessing the GA reviewer or half-assing our own GA reassessment.
My 2¢. — LlywelynII 23:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps DYK has not heard of WP:LEADCITE. Parsecboy (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Playing fast and loose?

To editor Crisco 1492: Why is the version of my George Zentmyer hook currently on the Main Page not the same as the approved version I wrote? I'm not pleased. I don't recall reading anything about editors changing hooks as they see fit. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't edit any of the hooks. However, I should note that copyediting has been allowed for years. What changes were made? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My wording "has a type of avocado tree named after him" was changed to "has an avocado cultivar named after him" by Cwmhiraeth in Prep6. @Cwmhiraeth: I don't appreciate changes to my wording. What gives? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I changed the wording because the previous wording was unsatisfactory. He didn't have a tree named after him, nor is a "type of tree" a good expression, he had a cultivar named after him. The avacado is Persea americana. This is the species name and has nothing to do with George A. Zentmyer. It was a rootstock cultivar that was named after him. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the article so yes, I know. I deliberately simplified it. If you don't like my hook the least you could do is let me know. Had I chosen to stick with the more specific wording I'd've wikified the word cultivar. In the future, please recall that editors like me are unaccustomed to your intervention. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks are routinely modified post-approval as they move to prep, or once in prep or Q, with surprisingly little pushback or argument. I do it all the time, to an extent I would have through unimaginable a year ago. Apparently most editors (let's call them "relaxed" editors) simply aren't that interested in the fine details of wording and mechanics, and are content to allow those of us who do care ("fussy" editors) to adjust as we see fit. But friction arises when the nominator is himself a "fussy" and another "fussy" comes along and tinkers. Even counting absolutely necessary grammar and usage fixes, there are too many adjustments post-nom to be pinging everyone all the time, so like it or not if you're a "fussy" you just have to keep an eye on the hook as it passes from nom to prep to Q.
I recall looking at this particular hook in prep, and wondering about the wording, but I would never have made a change such as the one mentioned here, if for no other reason than I know that all this cultivar - variety - species - etc stuff is highly technical and I don't understand it. Even if I thought I understood, in this case I'd probably open a discussion instead of just making the change, unless the article and the sources both were absolutely clear that the hook is wrong, and I think I see why the confusion crept in in the first place. It might be different if the subject were, say, math or CS. EEng (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. It's too bad you can't ping people from an edit summary in order to draw their attention to a particular edit you're making. That would be perfect for these situations.[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. I'd recommend adding a sentence about these post-approval modifications in the nomination page. I did 18 DYKs prior to this one and they were never changed (because I check them on the main page) hence my belief that wording gets ironed out in the nomination. For people like me that are wedded to their words, this practice is another alienating aspect of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your hooks have probably escaped modification because you're a "fussy" editor who gets it right the first time -- no grammar boners. If, though, you're wedded to your words (I am as well -- TRUST ME) you're gonna have to keep that marriage alive by keeping an eye on your spouse and defending it against interlopers -- surely you know nothing in WP is "hands off" -- quite the opposite. EEng (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things about Prep 1

We have the "fact":

Does it bother anyone else that "Je suis Charlie" is not a hashtag? I personally would prefer:

Also, there are two of my own hooks in the article which both relate to elections in Taunton, which given the balance that we strive for, seems a bit of overkill, should we swap one into another prep? Harrias talk 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK "rules"

What happens if a DYK nom does not meet the 5x expansion requirement at time of submission? Is there a time-frame within which it needs to be expanded? If it is not done within the 5 day requirement (which the rules state), does the clock reset? Or does the DYK nomination get a fail, requiring resubmission after another 5x expansion or GA promotion? This came up on the review of Template:Did you know nominations/We Bare Bears. I don't want to give it a pass, if it is going to anger the DYK gods. Gaff (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the rules have been changed to 7 days between creation/expansion and nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I don't see a problem. The article was clearly expanded, and was only a little short. If the article was nowhere near, and it looked like it was an early nomination to "game" the system and let the nominator have more time to expand, then I would say that would be a fail. Harrias talk 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two DYK?

Is it possible that two unrelated DYK is nominated by the same user simultaneously. Please {{ping}} me when replied, thanks.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, did you remember to ping FrB.TG? EEng (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't forget, I thought if you have a question you should be interested enough to watch the page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right isn't right

Currently in Prep 5 is a hook nominated by Jakec: "... that Shingle Mill Run is the only named tributary of West Branch Fishing Creek to enter it from the right?"

To me, this doesn't make any sense. You're standing out there and see that it enters from the right. But if you turn around... amazingly, now it enters from the left! The "right" should probably be changed to "east", but I wouldn't want to do that without checking the source. This was approved a week ago by EEng, and according to his comment on the nomination, the source is a map, but I can't check because apparently since then the source's domain name has expired. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandarax: See wikt:right bank and wikt:left bank. I meant to link that term, but I forgot. I'll do it right now. --Jakob (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's much better! Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. EEng (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec and EEng: That said, if the domain isn't renewed before this is due to go live, we'll have to pull it as the hook can not be verified for promotion from the prep area to the queue. It might be worth looking for another source, or preparing an alternative hook, just in case. Harrias talk 07:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

With the old list archived, I've compiled a new set of the 42 oldest nominations that need reviewing. We've made good progress: only seven have been waiting over a month since they were nominated or a re-review was requested. The first section has 2 that have been waiting for over two months, the second has 5 that have been waiting over a month, and the remaining 35 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

At the moment, 73 nominations are approved, leaving 203 of 276 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest.

Over two months:

Over one month:

Also needing review:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=643173418"