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 15:58, 4 April 2015 (→Where are the technogeeks when they're needed?: gasp!). 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.

Loophole in the DYK-GA criteria

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

  • Agree with Crisco: I don't see anything wrong with the GA reviewer nominating an article, but there is a loophole in that the DYK review should be by someone other than the GA reviewer, and be done independently of the GA review, but the rules don't say this. Given the number of DYK reviews that have resulted in a Good Article reassessment, and the article being delisted as a GA (and thus losing DYK eligibility), it's clear we need different reviewers for GA and DYK, since GA reviewers do get it wrong. (We have one nomination about to be reassessed, and it looks like the one here is another candidate for GAR.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhhh...until you mentioned this, never occurred to me that GA reviewer could also be DYK reviewer by DYK's lack of specifics on that. GA on DYK can be an asset, but there needs to be checks and balances written into the system. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everybody. EEng (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with adding the phrase to the rules. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, though I actually strengthened it a bit to exclude the GA nominator (who usually participates heavily in the GA review), as well as the GA reviewer, from being the DYK reviewer -- we want really fresh eyes here, remember. [1]
Good thinking, and good job, oh anonymous one.— Maile (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guess who! EEng (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still women's month

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 March update: 125 articles have appeared, 16 are in prep, 12 are reviewed, 12 are under review, 14 are nominated, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Now the March Women reservations are blanked. Well, I guess no statistics is needed right now. Let's wait for next year then. George Ho (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 March: the noms went back to their position in time, last call because preps are set for March: 137 articles have appeared, 9 are in prep for March, 12 are reviewed, 12 are under review, 21 are nominated, - reviews are slow, nominations keep coming. Thanks all, it's pretty amazing, I count a total of possibly 191. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31 March: 145 articles appeared, 5 are in prep, 16 are reviewed, 11 are under review, 16 are nominated, total possible 194, - great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fools schedule

What's the plan for updates on April 1? Is it to be 3 sets of 8, eight hours each? Personally I'd prefer to stick to 12 hours' residence for each set, even if that means we run over an extra 1/2 day. EEng (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is April 1 will use 3 sets of 8. Running over a 1/2 day is not a good option with a surge of Women's History Month submissions filling the slots for March 31 and group of Holy Week/Maundy Thursday submissions for April 2. --Allen3 talk 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how a Thursday can be Monday. EEng (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so whose job will it be to tickle the bot or whatever to make this schedule adjustment? Also, if I may ask, can Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators run at least partly during Eastern US work hours. I'd like my old Wit and Humor professor to see it -- imagine how proud he'll be! ;) EEng (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we restrict it to a single hour, during the next eclipse, and just in Boston? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AGF? Could we assume that the people who have been organising this for months have thought about this and are not "fools"? Victuallers (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UNBELIEVABLYQUICKTOSEEOFFENSEWHERENONEINTENDED? Could we assume that "Fools schedule" (my heading for this thread) simply meant "Question regarding April Fools Day schedule", instead of jumping to the strained conclusion that someone's being insulted somehow? Think twice next time, would you please? EEng (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How very dare you! Some of us have enough trouble thinking once! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or even zero times! EEng (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. That EEng, he's such a card. "lol" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, I've just adjusted the Dilators so they'll be visible from 4am to noon EDT. I hope this gives them enough of a daylight workout. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a relief! Good to know I still have friends in low places. EEng (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) "EDT" -- is that Eastern Dilate Time?[reply]

Bah...

Wikipedia is no place for humour.
Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

... harrumph Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've compiled a new set of the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing. The first section has 6 that were "new" back in December and January, the second has 5 that have been waiting for a reviewer for over a month, and the remaining 26 have been waiting for a shorter period than that.

As of the most recent reckoning, 96 nominations are approved, leaving 271 of 367 nominations still needing approval. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially those nominations that have been waiting the longest or are the oldest. Finishing the two from December 2014 and four from January 2015 would be especially welcome.

From December and January:

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) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old approved nominations awaiting promotion

With 104 nominations currently awaiting promotion (excluding special occasion hooks) and 385 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting for a long time, since they aren't listed in any order.

The following are 14 nominations that were approved at least two weeks ago (and one well over a month ago!), in order by the listed date of approval. Since we're promoting 102 per week (a few extra this week due to April Fool's), these 14 have been waiting much longer than average.

Please remember to cross off entries as you promote them, or discover that one isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All but 2 come with images. No wonder they've been passed over! Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most boring hooks ever now in Prep 6

Honestly, have we so completely given up on the "interesting" requirement that we now entertain hooks giving the length of a film in feet/meters?

... that the reel length of Mayabazar was 5,888 metres (19,318 ft)?

"Hey Marge! Look at this! Here's a film that's 5888 meters! That's so interesting!" EEng (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we will soon be past the sets that will be running during the observation of Easter and Passover. Once this is done we can start scheduling our backlog of nominations dealing with Hindu religious practices, banned Jewish activities, murder victims, and Nazi sex dolls (any relation between these topics is purely coincidental). --Allen3 talk 12:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about rectal dilators? EEng (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dilators are no longer in the backlog, as you have been previously informed. --Allen3 talk 13:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware the rectal dilators had been successfully passed -- I was just wondering how you could have failed to squeeze them into your august list. EEng (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First runner-up ("Most Boring Hook" category)

... that upon its opening, the Washburn branch asked to borrow materials from other Minneapolis libraries to meet the high demand from patrons?
"Hey Marge! Look at this! Here's a library that had such high demand from patrons that it asked to borrow materials from other libraries -- in Minneapolis! That's so interesting!" But really, I'm serious: hooks are supposed to be interesting. (Please no lectures about subjectivity.) What's weird is that I've hardly ever seen a boring hook whose article, upon examination, didn't contain the material for a good hook. It seems like some nominators just want the DYK credit, and care not whether hundreds of WP readers worldwide end up in the emergency room with Acute Boring Hook Stultification Syndrome. EEng (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs for UK Election

I just wanted to check before I started running off and expanding a bunch of articles for the UK Election (7 May), I wanted to clarify the promotion rule. It states "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)." Now I figure that by covering currently (or even very recent) MPs this could hit upon the inappropriate advantage during the campaign issue, but I was wondering if older subject (such as elections or MPs from the 20th century or earlier) would be fine as long as the hooks are neutral. I wasn't really seeking to get these together for the run-up to the election but instead for the 7 May itself. What do you all think? Miyagawa (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're much better off sticking with the historical material. EEng (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was always led to believe that you shouldn't run any involving current politicians or parties the month preceding the election in case it does have any unintended effects. Hence why I created UKIP Calypso earlier so that didn't happen. But if its historical then by all means I would think. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I wasn't far off track. I'm working up 12 Downing Street as a start (I was surprised that it was a stub). Miyagawa (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:DYK says is: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the technogeeks when they're needed?

Are we really never gonna have view statistics for April 1? I'm gonna cry! EEng (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:Village pump (technical). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just venting. <pfffffffft!> EEng (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking for stats for an article I had up on April 1st and have done some digging. You can find discussion of the issue in the village pump archives. The good news is that the raw data is available and so you can drill down for specific articles. For example, you can find the file pagecounts-20150401-130000 in the dumps for April. This contains lines like:
en Dr._Young%2527s_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators 2 0
en Dr._Young%27s_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators 1164 16518118
en Dr._Young's_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators 4 94376
These are the stats for one hour (13:00 UTC) and, in that hour there were 2 + 1164 + 4 = 1170 hits. Given time, I could assemble a full set of stats for the day but the dumps are large and there are other people who usually do this so maybe a fixup is already in the works.
If these dumps are too large and indigestible then another option is to try something similar again. I created the stub rectal dilator when I first came across the topic here and it is still small and tight. It would be easy to expand that five times to create an even larger passage... :) Andrew D. (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've been appointed an honorary curator of The Museums [2]. EEng (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=654925415"