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 Ian Rose (talk | contribs) at 05:04, 18 May 2015 (→Queue 2 due to hit front page at 12:00 on 18 May: 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.

Non-English text

May I again remind colleagues to use {{Lang}} when including non-English text in hooks, like this, for the important reasons explained in the template's documentation? We need to get this right, especially on such a high-profile page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little rule-let [1]. EEng (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't clutter up the DYK rules with non-DYK-specific rules. We already have litterally millions of DYK-specific rules. I suppose we could make a page listing some general Wikipedia rules and guidelines which should be observed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with repeating general WP stuff that comes up a lot in hooks and is frequently overlooked. They should not be on a separate page -- too many of those at DYK already. I stuffed this into the "C-series" of "rules" because I couldn't see where else to put it. EEng (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with hook in Queue about to hit the Main Page

There are problems with the last hook of Queue 6: ... that The Guardian thinks Nigel Farage is better at eating a bacon sandwich than Ed Miliband?

The article says no such thing. According to the article, "The Guardian said that the sliced bread which Farage ate was easier to eat than the bread roll which Miliband had", which is not even close to what the hook says.

The source, which is a four-sentence blog entry, says "Farage couldn't miss an opportunity to show him how it's done", which is a little closer, but still not good enough to support what the hook says.

More minor issues: a newspaper can't "think", and the Queue's lead hook is about a UK politician and it would be better not to have another in the same set.

The hook was proposed by Ritchie333, who also reviewed and approved the nomination. This is why one shouldn't review one's own hooks.

The Queue is set to hit the Main Page in about 20 minutes, so please take care of this problem quickly. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without reviewing the problem myself, posted to WP:Main Page/Errors and several admins pinged. EEng (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pull it. I'll go write 100 lines saying "I must not be funny on the main page". To be fair, there were 2 ALTs proposed, I asked the prep builder to choose, and also pinged EEng for a second opinion at the time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not an attempt to "be funny on the main page". It's perfectly fine to have a funny hook as long as you comply with the DYK rules. And to be even more fair, I'd like to point out that your attempted ping of EEng did not appear to be for a second opinion about the article or any existing hook; it appears to be merely soliciting a funnier hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed my Notifications log and it's not in there (though you clearly made it -- I've seen people discussing this phenomenon). So I'm off the hook, thank God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about one of the other hooks instead of pulling? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My original hook said what has been suggested here, about the sliced bread over the bread roll. If this ever goes back up, consider this hook or another. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The six minutes on the Main Page should not prevent this from getting another shot. The author should not be penalized for a bad hook proposed and approved by a reviewer as part of a, frankly, horrible review. I don't understand the reviewer's dismissal of the original hook as "misleading". That hook, unlike the reviewer's hook suggestion, seems to accurately say what both the article and the source say. (However, the source is that same four-sentence blog entry, so I'll leave it to the new reviewer to evaluate that.) The "review" was woefully incomplete. Other than dismissing an apparently correct hook and suggesting and approving an incorrect one, the only thing mentioned as being reviewed was "Article is brand new". All around, a truly horrible excuse for a review. I've reinstated the nomination, and it will require a full, actual review from a competent reviewer. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild card entry?

Can a did you know have a wild card entry? Charlotte, the baby monkey, has gained lot of attention, can any news by the royal family can be there at any time
117.198.184.5 (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be as predicted (not promoting crystal ball):
I assume the above refers to this news story but please note that DYK is for highlighting new or improved articles. A hook without an article defeats the purpose of this project. I think your best bet is to create a 1,500 character article for the park the monkey lives in, mention the above fact, and then nominate it for DYK. Fuebaey (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sense a notability problem -- see WP:Notability (monkeys). EEng (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: It is a red link.
117.217.114.126 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was joking with the link -- there's no notability guideline for monkeys. But I think there really is a notability problem here, and I can't tell what you're proposing with respect to DYK. EEng (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Sliding bookcase, now in Queue 5

Is it just me, or does anyone else agree that this article is nothing more than a collection of random examples, with no sources directly addressing the subject itself in any significant way? EEng (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The more the the the better?

Now in Queue 5:

... that the terrorist attack carried out in Mostar in 1997 by the al-Qaeda remains the most serious terrorist attack in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

"the al-Qaeda"??? Really??? Isn't this the preoccupation beyond the pale now? EEng (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The worst is "the hoi polloi". Too many people do that. Edwardx (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Especially the hoi polloi. EEng (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the redundant repetition (not even the above, "terrorist attack" is also mentioned twice) and the vague term "serious", the article does not actually say it was carried out by al-Qaeda. "Linked with" and "carried out by" are two very different things. Fuebaey (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there non-serious terrorist attacks? EEng (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly should have been "deadliest". But then you DYKers know best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just get it right each time before it's posted to the main page? Looks like quality of DYK is heading south right now. Any one of you give a toss about that? Avoid redirects, avoid disambiguations, avoid grammar fails, pay attention to English variations. That stuff is simple; for you Americans, let's call it DYK 101. Please try harder, and (as you have done with me) avoid chasing people away who are trying to help stop making DYK the regular laughing stock of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one would be happy to see you helping out again, but please for God's sake give the bitter denunciations a rest. You have an amazing talent for alienating people, with the result that they don't attend to your real message. EEng (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have many amazing talents. Getting the encyclopedia right is one of them. I'll ask nicely. Please stop sending errors to the main page guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have a talent for "getting the encyclopedia right" because that requires many hands, whereas you regularly offend people so they don't want to participate. You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"‍—‌go soak your head, will you?
I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into‍—‌the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping. EEng (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say to that is a heartfelt amen. I think the overwhelming majority of people here would agree with you. Prioryman (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're all proud of being the regulars at ERRORS? I don't understand why. As for consistent unpleasantness, I really only mirror others' behaviour EEng. You should take a closer look. As for your claim that you have defended me and wanted me to return, you were the sole reason I left. Things don't seem to have improved.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one's proud of errors, but you're not helping improve things. As for the rest I'll let others decide. EEng (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of information, none of the "others" can help you with the absolute fact that it was solely you that drove me away from DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that others can decide whether that's a reasonable charge, based on our public interactions. In any event it was never my intent. EEng (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course they can't. It's entirely down to me to decide why I left. And it was due to you, regardless of your intent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only you (if, indeed, anyone) can say for sure what goes on in that talented mind of yours, but the rest of us are left to judge the reasonableness of your plaint using only what is externally observable. For myself it's hard to imagine anyone or anything, short of a straitjacket, leg irons, and a muzzle, dissuading you from particupating wherever you choose. Please now you have the last word, Rumbling Man. EEng (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Your hounding and "joking" and criticisms pushed me off fixing the very things that are reported at ERRORS every single day. You are indignant and proud. Good for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How lovely that you two shy wallflowers have finally found friendship and are getting along so well. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Not a joking matter really, considering the abject decline in the quality of DYK once again, now that User:Fram and I have been chased away. Still, keeps us busy day-on-day at ERRORS fixing up the usual DYK fare. EEng, Prioryman etc must be so proud. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point to this drama. Someone made a minor grammatical error in a queue. It was fixed five days ago and ran a day after that. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think you miss the point entirely. These kinds of errors are in every DYK listing every day. A few of us who cared to make the main page more professional were given short shrift and have since left DYK to its own "quality control" which apparently means an almost daily appearance at ERRORS for something that could be fixed by someone who cared before it made it to the main page. Worse, for entire hooks which are entirely inappropriate being pulled. Still, Jakob, you seem so sure about it, it would be great to see you helping out fixing all the errors in the queues and pulling the hooks that are noted as being inaccurate, offensive, etc despite making it to the mainpage as a result of the "quality control" around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Athletics

Is there an article about how many times blurbs about University of Michigan sports have occurred on DYK? If not there surely should be. Saratoga Sam (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First comes the article about how many times blurbs about creeks and streams in Pennsylvania have appeared. EEng (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Some people on the main page don't like the formatting of the Did you know section, and have proposed an alternate wording and are looking for a bold admin. See/participate in this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at considerable length, but I can't find the archive to reference it. Harrias talk 06:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this particular problem was discussed before, I missed it. As of now, what we have at DYK is this:

Did you know… From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content: ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?

Those who feel that the “From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content:” disrupts the sentence “Did you know that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?” suggest that any of the following flows better / avoids fracturing the syntax:

Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content


From Wikipedia's new or recently improved content Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?


Did you know… ... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? ... that the above are drawn from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content?


As we know, very few people participate in discussion concerning the Main Page, but of those who have voiced an opinion, six say the present sequence is broke and needs to be fixed, two say it ain’t broke.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the previous discussion either, but I know it happened because I was part of it and made the same suggestions then. --Khajidha (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Sept 2013 started by you? Or March 2014? — Maile (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please keep the discussion "over there"? It's pointless to present alternatives shorn of their typographic details, and no "bold admin" is going to change the MP layout without clear consensus. EEng (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to have an RfC, let's do it properly with a {{rfc|style|rfcid=326B452}} tag to get it listed, and centralise the discussion either here, or on Talk:Main Page. Harrias talk 15:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I think the discussion should be held here, because it affects DYK primarily, and because all the DYK editors weigh in on this page. The discussion was started on the Main Page talk page by someone who seemed to be looking for a "bold administrator". An RfC is more effective. Yoninah (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change. I agree that it's better to make a direct connection between "Did you know..." and "... that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" That catches the reader's eye. At the end, we could make the line into a sentence: See more new and recently improved content here. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change, as I have already said on the MP. Eman235/talk 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change for the reasons already explained on the main page: no amount of formatting redeems garbled wording, and no amount of "seniority" is justification for letting it stand. Awien (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change because it's based on the Procrustean idea that everything's a sentence, and that things should be bent and twisted in obeisance to that mistaken notion. I would, however, recommend that the terminal colon be removed from
From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:
EEng (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support change the fact that it has been like this for some time does not mean it's right, or optimal. I suggest the following flow: Did you know... ...that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram? The above were selected from Wikipedias new and recently improved content.Fractal618 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change. The current layout puts the "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" between the header and the blurbs. You wouldn't write "Did you know from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content that in 1742, Zoroastrians built the Udvada Atash Behram?" but that is what the current layout implies. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it should continue to be done. Would prefer moving "from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content" to the end and rephrasing as "that the above were taken from from Wikipedia's new and recently improved content?" --Khajidha (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change, per the argument given by Khajidha. This is a better way of presenting DYK hooks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change, This has always bugged me, but I thought I was the only one. Alternatively, if it can't be changed as proposed, perhaps remove all the ellipses so to break the suggestion that the title and the hooks should be assembled into sentences. APL~enwiki (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2015 (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) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 due to hit front page at 12:00 on 18 May

Just a note that the hook for John Wilton (general) as originally written (ALT1 by the way) read "Australian General", not "the Australian General" and I think it still works better without the definite article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=662886265"